Amy Coney Barrett flunked the racial bias test

Apparently being called a nigger by your boss is not hostile:

The 2019 case involved a Black Illinois transportation employee who sued the department after he was fired. He said his supervisor had created a hostile work environment and called him the N-word.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the employee had failed to prove that he had been fired because of his race. In her opinion, Barrett wrote that the N-word is an "egregious racial epithet," but she argued that the employee couldn't win by simply proving the N-word was said to him.

If it had been a co-worker, or even a supervisor from a different department, her argument might have merit. But a direct supervisor doing that changes everything. It calls into question previous disciplinary "problems" the employee had on his work record, which is what Barrett used to justify dismissing the case. She ignored the inherent and obvious bias in his chain of command, and then held him responsible for the results of that bias. Forgetting (for the moment) the election results or dangers to Roe v. Wade, this decision proves she can't rule properly on any labor vs. management issue, a substantial portion of the Court's docket.

Tags: 

Comments

Sorry about the use of that word

in my intro sentence. It is ugly, but that's the point. Too often we try to blunt that ugliness by saying "N-word" or "N****r," because it is somehow less offensive that way. But when it's used against an African-American citizen on the streets (or at work), is it blunted? Does that racist take care not to offend?

No. It is used to degrade, in all its ugliness. Amy Coney Barrett might not think it's such a big deal, but it is.