fag!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733669&forum_id=2)#48988722)

"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed on June 5 that a worker faced a higher hurdle to sue her employer as a straight woman than if she'd been gay."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733669&forum_id=2)#48988732)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf

oral argument was boring af because all three lawyers agreed that the Sixth Circuit's test was ttt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNp9J07atGM

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733669&forum_id=2)#48988771)

"The “‘background circumstances’” rule is nonsensical for an additional reason: It requires courts to assume that only an “‘unusual employer’” would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority. But, a number of this Nation’s largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups. American employers have long been “obsessed” with “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives and affirmative action plans... Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5733669&forum_id=2)#48989521)