Search:

Type: Posts; User: shtexas

Search: Search took 0.21 seconds.

  1. Replies
    27
    Views
    6,157

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Companies have those sorts of lovely statements, and then abandon their commitment to the Lord when something threatens their bottom line. I think I mentioned the cancer example above here. That...
  2. Replies
    27
    Views
    6,157

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Of course, not having a claimant doesn't stop the supreme court. We thought they needed someone to be penalized for not getting health care before they could decide the tax issue of the ACA. They...
  3. Replies
    27
    Views
    6,157

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    That's the whole point. The policy appears neutral, but disproportionately harms one group over the other. The problem is I think the Supreme Court needs a claimant. As far as I know, employees did...
  4. Replies
    27
    Views
    6,157

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    Disparate impact. An employment policy may be considered discriminatory if it has a disproportionate impact on a minority. In this case, women.
  5. Replies
    27
    Views
    6,157

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2013-2014

    The idea of a la carte health insurance based on your employer's beliefs is deeply troubling on many different fronts. Not just religious grounds, but gender grounds in these specific cases. We're...
Results 1 to 5 of 5