TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
18.02.2008
Cracker Barrel in the Supreme Court

Emily Bazelon has a nice piece in Slate setting the stage for CBOCS West v. Humphries, the employment discrimination case the Supreme Court will hear tomorrow. Essentially, a supervisor at a Cracker Barrel make racist remarks and treated black employees (including the plaintiff, Hendrick Humphries) unfairly. Humphries complained and was promptly fired. Even the Bush Justice Department thinks he's entitled to damages. But because the civil rights statute in question doesn't explicitly apply to retaliation for complaining about racial discrimination (as opposed to the discrimination itself), Bazelon believes the Court likely won't be favorably inclined towards him:

Unless Kennedy changes his course, which is doubtful, the court's right flank could use this case not only to block suits for retaliation like Humphries', but also to set the stage to make it ever harder to sue for discrimination under other laws. You can imagine the opinion to be written this spring, perhaps by Alito or Chief Justice John Roberts. There will be no need to get fiery--that's not these new justices' style. Instead, it can all seem unremarkable and straightforward: Congress didn't say retaliation, so Hendrick Humphries, you don't get your retaliation suit. Oh, and by the way, we look forward to citing this opinion the next time a screwed-over plaintiff comes around.

Of course Congress could always just revise the law to clarify what it meant, but in practice that usually winds up being more difficult than it sounds. Last year, when the Court limited the reach of anti-discrimination law in the Ledbetter case, leading Democrats in Congress announced their intention to set things straight--except the bill, after passing the House, got held up in the Senate and never even made it to the president's desk. Ted Kennedy's going to give it another shot this year, but the point remains that given Congress's innate tendency toward gridlock, it creates lots of problems when the Court interprets anti-discrimination statutes in dubious ways.

--Josh Patashnik 

Posted: Monday, February 18, 2008 3:51 PM with 6 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

stgla said:

I'm confused.  Don't they still need a rationale for firing the guy?

February 18, 2008 4:27 PM

sdemuth said:

stgla: Not in almost every state in the union.  Unless you've got a contract saying otherwise, the only thing labor law protects you against being fired for is being a member of a "protected class."  In most places you can be fired without reason, or for any reason other than race, gender, age, or in some cases sexual preference, discrimination.  Unless you can PROVE (as in, you have in writing or sworn testimony that the person doing the firing said "I'm going to clean this place up by getting rid of that <name your protected class epithet>"), or you can PROVE a pattern of excess firing of a protected class, you're toast whenever your employer decides to toast you.

It's called "at will employment" and it's the law of the land except in a few places.

February 18, 2008 5:39 PM

stgla said:

sdemuth -- Thanks

February 18, 2008 5:48 PM

lesserliz said:

The Alito court will probably rule against the employees as they were forewarned ipso facto of discriminatory practices by the name-"Cracker Barrel."

February 18, 2008 5:48 PM

rannpb said:

It seems the trial court dismissed his original claim, which he filed under the more appropriate Civil Rights Act, with prejudice because his filing fee was late. If they had dismissed without prejudice, he would have been able to refile under that law, which actually does prohibit firing for complaining about discrimination in the workplace.

Because the Civil Rights Act prohibits Cracker Barrel's conduct anyway, this case probably won't have very far-reaching implications. The plaintiff's gonna get screwed though.

February 18, 2008 9:25 PM

Robert Powell said:

lesserliz is right. What should one expect of CRACKER Barrel?

February 19, 2008 5:51 AM