On Being Free

Denis Diderot once famously said: “Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” Certainly these words ring true when we see the theocratic tyranny in Iran. But as we look to the 4th of July we in the U.S.A. would be well advised to demand more from our guarantees of freedom.

Lost in all the news of Michael Jackson's demise Americans likely missed the fact that the Supreme Court ruled this past week in an important age discrimination case and handed down a 5-4 decision that will make it harder (if not impossible) for older workers to prove they were treated unfairly by their employers. 

The case involved Jack Gross, a 53-year-old man who claimed he was discriminated against and who in turn was demoted solely because of age and then was replaced by a younger female worker. The Supreme Court ruled that Iowa-based FBL Financial Services Inc., did not have to prove that they did not discriminate against Mr. Gross--a finding that sets a terrible precedent for civil rights plaintiffs. Essentially Clarence Thomas (who was the fifth vote and who wrote the decision) has erased the burden of defense for employers.

While we watch videos of Michael Jackson's last rehearsal and hear over and over again about his troubled life and mysterious death it seems that the arbitrary and discriminatory hubris of the conservative majority on the nation's highest court has once again been ignored by contemporary journalism--whatever that is?

The specter of a corporate defendant that does not have to defend itself against injustice is chilling and its hard to say who is the king and who is the priest but I'll say that FBL Financial Services Inc. is wearing its crown and Clarence Thomas surely keeps in his office the proper towels and cruets.

 

S.K.    

Comments

[fridawrites]

Anger, just anger. In the past in discrimination cases, including disability, the defendent had to respond with the reasons for their decisions. The plaintiff then had the burden of proof to show that those reasons offered were a pretext for discrimination. How can this work at all now if the defendents just have to say, "We didn't discriminate!"?