The Supreme Court’s two rulings this week in employment discrimination cases brought a startling response today from the Washington Post’s editorialists in an opinion piece, “Flawed Victory.” The cases were CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries — in which a court majority created a law to ban employer retaliation — and Gomez-Perez v. Potter, Postmaster General, in which the court found reasons in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to give federal employees the right to sue claiming retaliation. The Post concluded:
Protecting employees from retaliation makes sense, but it is not the province of judges to create such protections on the basis of their own beliefs of what is right or wrong, or even on the basis of their intuitive sense of what Congress meant to do or should have done. And those who today praise the outcome shouldn’t be upset if in the future justices read into the law new principles that lead to results they may find less acceptable.
The New York Times took a different point of view. From “In Defense of Workers“:
The Supreme Court handed down a pair of well-reasoned, fair-minded rulings this week upholding the rights of employees who charge age and race discrimination. The decisions, which forbid employers from retaliating against such workers, are a welcome break from some of the recent rulings by this court that have ignored precedent and common sense to throw out legitimate claims of unfair treatment.
We really like the New York Times’ editorial page. It’s so predictable you don’t have to waste your time reading it.
And a Washington Post news analysis by Robert Barnes, headlined, “Justices Show Ability to Move to the Center.” And, after all, being in the center is what counts, right?
Crossposted from Point of Law.com
Latest posts by Carter Wood (see all)
- Farewell from a Blogger - May 25, 2011
- Activist Ignore Evidence to Back Shakedown Suit Against Chevron - May 25, 2011
- More than a Lawsuit: A Circle of Political Pressure Against Chevron - May 25, 2011