Your source for the latest developments in workplace rights and employment law. "Today's Workplace" is the the blog (weblog) written by Paula Brantner, Program Director of Workplace Fairness. In each entry, Paula focuses on legal and political information relevant to employee rights and fairness issues in the workplace. Whether you're an advocate trying to stay on top of the latest case developments and workplace trends, or a worker wanting to follow and understand the issues, keep up to date here!
Friday, April 18, 2003
You would like to think that people who ascend to the CEO and director positions of Fortune 500 companies did so because they're very bright people who also happen to have more than just a knack for business. However, a number of these individuals have recently done quite a few not-so-bright things that make you want to ask: will they ever learn?
Let's take, for example, the folks who run American Airlines. As you may have heard, American has spent the week threatening to file for bankruptcy unless its three major unions agreed to wage concessions. (See American Airlines Unions Vote on Concessions.) Two of the three unions, the Allied Pilots Association and the Transport Workers Union, immediately voted for the wage concession package, while the flight attendants, represented by the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), originally rejected the concessions by a close vote. Amidst continuing bankruptcy threats and the claims that some flight attendants were having difficulty casting votes, however, American and the APFA agreed to a redo on Wednesday (4/16), and the concessions were ultimately ratified by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin. (See Flight Attendants Approve Concessions at American.) Some industry experts praised American president Donald J. Carty's leadership of the airline through this potential financial disaster: one expert called this "Don Carty's highest moment."
Carty probably shouldn't savor the situation for too long. While on Tuesday (4/15), the unions were struggling to have their members accept pay cuts, American quietly filed its quarterly report with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which contained a bombshell. Two significant and previously undisclosed changes were made to American's executive compensation plan: a plan to pay the airline's top six executives bonuses equal to twice their salaries if they remain at the airline until January 2005, and the creation of a trust guaranteeing parts of the pension plans for American's 45 top executives in the event of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. (See American's Exec Pay Enrages Labor.) Union leaders, which had worked closely with American to encourage their respective memberships to ratify wage concessions, are understandably very upset, and one union leader has threatened to scuttle the deal his union just ratified. Jim Little of the Transport Workers Union said he will reconsider signing the new contract because American's "failure to timely disclose" the changes was a material breach of its obligation to workers. John Ward, head of the flight attendants union, called American's move "the equivalent of an obscene gesture from management to employees," while APFA leadership has posted at the APFA web site the comment "APFA is outraged by these latest revelations, which extend even beyond the sorry course of conduct that the Company pursued throughout the past several weeks."
While industry experts believe that American weathered this crisis, in part, due to lessons learned from the bankruptcies of United Airlines and US Airways, American obviously didn't learn from Delta's similar mistake less than a month ago. As reported here in the 3/26/03 blog entry, Delta disclosed in its quarterly SEC filing that it had paid its chairman and chief executive Leo Mullin $13 million in 2002, given its executives cash bonuses totaling $17.3 million, and created a special $25.5 million executive pension fund, during a year in which Delta lost $1.27 billion and was planning flight cutbacks. Then again, perhaps he did learn something from Delta--amidst all of the bad airline news, the hypocrisy of Delta's announcement hasn't seemed to generate that much outrage.
These moves aren't limited to the obviously-struggling airline industry--they're happening all over. As recently commented by Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post, however,
It's up to all of us to pay attention. Because it appears the oh-so-smart CEOs and corporate directors won't ever learn.
Let's take, for example, the folks who run American Airlines. As you may have heard, American has spent the week threatening to file for bankruptcy unless its three major unions agreed to wage concessions. (See American Airlines Unions Vote on Concessions.) Two of the three unions, the Allied Pilots Association and the Transport Workers Union, immediately voted for the wage concession package, while the flight attendants, represented by the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), originally rejected the concessions by a close vote. Amidst continuing bankruptcy threats and the claims that some flight attendants were having difficulty casting votes, however, American and the APFA agreed to a redo on Wednesday (4/16), and the concessions were ultimately ratified by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin. (See Flight Attendants Approve Concessions at American.) Some industry experts praised American president Donald J. Carty's leadership of the airline through this potential financial disaster: one expert called this "Don Carty's highest moment."
Carty probably shouldn't savor the situation for too long. While on Tuesday (4/15), the unions were struggling to have their members accept pay cuts, American quietly filed its quarterly report with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which contained a bombshell. Two significant and previously undisclosed changes were made to American's executive compensation plan: a plan to pay the airline's top six executives bonuses equal to twice their salaries if they remain at the airline until January 2005, and the creation of a trust guaranteeing parts of the pension plans for American's 45 top executives in the event of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. (See American's Exec Pay Enrages Labor.) Union leaders, which had worked closely with American to encourage their respective memberships to ratify wage concessions, are understandably very upset, and one union leader has threatened to scuttle the deal his union just ratified. Jim Little of the Transport Workers Union said he will reconsider signing the new contract because American's "failure to timely disclose" the changes was a material breach of its obligation to workers. John Ward, head of the flight attendants union, called American's move "the equivalent of an obscene gesture from management to employees," while APFA leadership has posted at the APFA web site the comment "APFA is outraged by these latest revelations, which extend even beyond the sorry course of conduct that the Company pursued throughout the past several weeks."
While industry experts believe that American weathered this crisis, in part, due to lessons learned from the bankruptcies of United Airlines and US Airways, American obviously didn't learn from Delta's similar mistake less than a month ago. As reported here in the 3/26/03 blog entry, Delta disclosed in its quarterly SEC filing that it had paid its chairman and chief executive Leo Mullin $13 million in 2002, given its executives cash bonuses totaling $17.3 million, and created a special $25.5 million executive pension fund, during a year in which Delta lost $1.27 billion and was planning flight cutbacks. Then again, perhaps he did learn something from Delta--amidst all of the bad airline news, the hypocrisy of Delta's announcement hasn't seemed to generate that much outrage.
These moves aren't limited to the obviously-struggling airline industry--they're happening all over. As recently commented by Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post, however,
It's not just that many of the top guys got big raises despite a lousy year for most investors and negligible pay increases for most of their employees. More significantly, the proxies confirm that directors continue to accept the claptrap that the only way to attract and retain top executives is to lavish them with wealth way out of proportion to what other talented humans seem to require.(See Outrageous CEO Pay Still A Sore Point.) And political cartoonist Tom Toles may have said it best today. (See Toles (4/18/03)).
It's up to all of us to pay attention. Because it appears the oh-so-smart CEOs and corporate directors won't ever learn.
Thursday, April 17, 2003
Somehow it seems fitting, on the day of the death of diet doctor Robert C. Atkins, to look at what is going on in the workplace in regards to obesity. We've all heard numerous stories about the recent steep increase in the number of obese Americans--how does that development affect the workplace?
Today's News Headlines contains a new story about a Connecticut man who recently filed a lawsuit against his local McDonald's, who he claims refused to hire him because he weighed 420 pounds. I guess that once the class action lawsuit against McDonald's for causing obesity was thrown out (see CNNMoney article), McDonald's feels that it has disproved any link at all between McDonald's food and any overweight Americans. Joseph Connor's lawsuit, filed last year, claims that McDonald's acted in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. The lawsuit is in the beginning stages, but just survived a challenge from McDonald's to throw the case out on the basis that Mr. Connor's morbid obesity should not legally be considered a disability. The judge disagreed, so Mr. Connor will be allowed to proceed with his case and to gather evidence about whether McDonald's discriminated against him when they failed to hire him. The Connecticut case is noteworthy according to Mr. Connor's lawyer, Gary Phelan, because "This is the first time a Connecticut court is saying that obesity may be a disability under state discrimination law." (For more information, see WF's pages on disability discrimination and Connecticut discrimination law.)
There are few laws specifically making it illegal to discriminate against obese individuals. Michigan has the only state law which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of weight; a few cities have local ordinances which also cover weight and/or appearance. (See Anti-Weight Discrimination Laws.) More commonly argued in court is that an obese person is either disabled or perceived to be disabled, and therefore protected by anti-discrimination laws which apply to a wide range of disabilities. These claims have met with varying degrees of success: the more overweight an individual is, the more likely their chances for success, as long as their weight does not preclude them from performing the essential functions of the job at issue. (See summary of case decisions and bibliography on obesity discrimination.)
More work in this area needs to be done; obviously, the law is not as clearly developed as it should be, and more and more individuals are likely to encounter obesity discrimination. While employers concerned about personal appearance and health care costs may be increasingly inclined to discriminate against the obese, they are likely to find that more and more job applicants and employees are going to be part of that category. Like companies who have learned that discrimination is costly, both in terms of exposure to lawsuits and in limiting workplace diversity, those who discriminate against those who are obese will likely learn the same hard lessons, especially if more cases like the one in Connecticut are brought successfully.
Today's News Headlines contains a new story about a Connecticut man who recently filed a lawsuit against his local McDonald's, who he claims refused to hire him because he weighed 420 pounds. I guess that once the class action lawsuit against McDonald's for causing obesity was thrown out (see CNNMoney article), McDonald's feels that it has disproved any link at all between McDonald's food and any overweight Americans. Joseph Connor's lawsuit, filed last year, claims that McDonald's acted in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. The lawsuit is in the beginning stages, but just survived a challenge from McDonald's to throw the case out on the basis that Mr. Connor's morbid obesity should not legally be considered a disability. The judge disagreed, so Mr. Connor will be allowed to proceed with his case and to gather evidence about whether McDonald's discriminated against him when they failed to hire him. The Connecticut case is noteworthy according to Mr. Connor's lawyer, Gary Phelan, because "This is the first time a Connecticut court is saying that obesity may be a disability under state discrimination law." (For more information, see WF's pages on disability discrimination and Connecticut discrimination law.)
There are few laws specifically making it illegal to discriminate against obese individuals. Michigan has the only state law which makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of weight; a few cities have local ordinances which also cover weight and/or appearance. (See Anti-Weight Discrimination Laws.) More commonly argued in court is that an obese person is either disabled or perceived to be disabled, and therefore protected by anti-discrimination laws which apply to a wide range of disabilities. These claims have met with varying degrees of success: the more overweight an individual is, the more likely their chances for success, as long as their weight does not preclude them from performing the essential functions of the job at issue. (See summary of case decisions and bibliography on obesity discrimination.)
More work in this area needs to be done; obviously, the law is not as clearly developed as it should be, and more and more individuals are likely to encounter obesity discrimination. While employers concerned about personal appearance and health care costs may be increasingly inclined to discriminate against the obese, they are likely to find that more and more job applicants and employees are going to be part of that category. Like companies who have learned that discrimination is costly, both in terms of exposure to lawsuits and in limiting workplace diversity, those who discriminate against those who are obese will likely learn the same hard lessons, especially if more cases like the one in Connecticut are brought successfully.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
As I, like many other Americans, try not to get too depressed over the forms I'm still scrambling to fill out and the taxes I must pay this year, I try to remember that I could be much worse off. Here is some information and commentary related to April 15:
Longing to Return to W-2 Status
In this commentary, published in the Christian Science Monitor, Joseph H. Cooper's essay (semiautobiographical, according to the author's bio) reflects on the pain caused by being unemployed on April 15. Cooper's anonymous character muses: "It's the 1040 time of year and he longs for a return to W-2 status. With a mix of memory and desire, he sighs, `I'd never complain about owing taxes, if only I had a salary again.'" The pain of Cooper's protagonist is echoed in an article which appeared in the New York Times Magazine this past weekend, entitled Commute To Nowhere. In this extensively researched and well-written article, reporter Jonathan Mahler profiles three out-of-work professionals who grapple with long-term unemployment after reaching the pinnacles of career success. One former computer-industry wiz now sells khakis at the Gap, while a former IT professional with a Ph.D, unemployed for two years, now works as a substitute teacher. As the author comments,
You Can Stop Working for 2002 Now: If You're Female, That Is...
As if April 15 wasn't depressing enough, today is also Equal Pay Day--our annual reminder that women have to work a few extra months each year in order to catch up to their male counterparts. Today is symbolic of the day women finally earn as much -- since Jan. 1, 2002 -- as men earned by Dec. 31, 2002. (See KC Star article). Creative protests of the pay gap are planned: in Boston, working women plan to hold an “Unhappy Hour” at a downtown bar; women’s drinks will cost 76 cents, while men will have to pay $1. (See AFL-CIO News: Equal Pay Day. Similar hijinks happened during previous Equal Pay Day observances: in 2002, activists for pay equity in Minnesota sponsored a morning "UnHappy Hour" event; those who attended were given 3/4 cups of coffee or latte, received 3/4 of a muffin and had 3/4 napkins to symbolize the almost 3/4 of a dollar that women are paid. (See Equal Pay Day 2002). Similar strategies were recently employed in Utah, by some teenagers who are already pretty smart cookies themselves when it comes to gender equity. (See Women's E-News article.) It's a pretty savvy way to draw attention to a very real issue that refuses to go away.
Other resources on Equal Pay Day:
Equal Pay Day: Legislative Background
The Case for Equal Pay
AFL-CIO State-By-State Pay Equity Reports
Civil Rights Plaintiffs Pay More Than Their Fair Share
On this day, some are paying far more than most...those who have successfully vindicated their rights through our legal system. Many will celebrate their victory in court or through a successful settlement by writing a large check to the IRS--for some, the amount will be larger than the check they received when they won or settled their case. Here are a couple of news stories about those people:
Women Victors in Bias Suit Seek Tax Law Reform
Winners and Losers
These cases illustrate why we need your help in passing the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act, so that on April 15, 2004, there won't be any more winners who become losers that day.
More Information on the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act
Lobby Days for Tax Relief
Longing to Return to W-2 Status
In this commentary, published in the Christian Science Monitor, Joseph H. Cooper's essay (semiautobiographical, according to the author's bio) reflects on the pain caused by being unemployed on April 15. Cooper's anonymous character muses: "It's the 1040 time of year and he longs for a return to W-2 status. With a mix of memory and desire, he sighs, `I'd never complain about owing taxes, if only I had a salary again.'" The pain of Cooper's protagonist is echoed in an article which appeared in the New York Times Magazine this past weekend, entitled Commute To Nowhere. In this extensively researched and well-written article, reporter Jonathan Mahler profiles three out-of-work professionals who grapple with long-term unemployment after reaching the pinnacles of career success. One former computer-industry wiz now sells khakis at the Gap, while a former IT professional with a Ph.D, unemployed for two years, now works as a substitute teacher. As the author comments,
While the recession of the early 90’s took a heavy toll on white-collar workers, this one seems to have institutionalized the phenomenon. Advanced degrees, no matter how prestigious, offer little protection. The economy is grim nationwide, but the picture in New York City is especially bleak. Since the end of 2000, the media-and-communications sector has cut 15 percent of its jobs, telecommunications 27 percent, advertising 25 percent. Eighteen percent of jobs on Wall Street have been slashed, and firms continue to lay people off. Given the delirium with which most high-tech jobs were first created, there’s no reason to believe that many of them — and the jobs in other sectors that they generated — will come back anytime soon.There are far too many Americans who aren't submitting their W-2s to the IRS today.
By the numbers, women have been hit as hard as men, but white-collar men tend to experience unemployment differently, organizational psychologists say. For most women, survival trumps ego; they simply adapt and find some job. For men, grappling with joblessness inevitably entails surrendering an idea of who they are — or who others thought they were.
You Can Stop Working for 2002 Now: If You're Female, That Is...
As if April 15 wasn't depressing enough, today is also Equal Pay Day--our annual reminder that women have to work a few extra months each year in order to catch up to their male counterparts. Today is symbolic of the day women finally earn as much -- since Jan. 1, 2002 -- as men earned by Dec. 31, 2002. (See KC Star article). Creative protests of the pay gap are planned: in Boston, working women plan to hold an “Unhappy Hour” at a downtown bar; women’s drinks will cost 76 cents, while men will have to pay $1. (See AFL-CIO News: Equal Pay Day. Similar hijinks happened during previous Equal Pay Day observances: in 2002, activists for pay equity in Minnesota sponsored a morning "UnHappy Hour" event; those who attended were given 3/4 cups of coffee or latte, received 3/4 of a muffin and had 3/4 napkins to symbolize the almost 3/4 of a dollar that women are paid. (See Equal Pay Day 2002). Similar strategies were recently employed in Utah, by some teenagers who are already pretty smart cookies themselves when it comes to gender equity. (See Women's E-News article.) It's a pretty savvy way to draw attention to a very real issue that refuses to go away.
Other resources on Equal Pay Day:
Equal Pay Day: Legislative Background
The Case for Equal Pay
AFL-CIO State-By-State Pay Equity Reports
Civil Rights Plaintiffs Pay More Than Their Fair Share
On this day, some are paying far more than most...those who have successfully vindicated their rights through our legal system. Many will celebrate their victory in court or through a successful settlement by writing a large check to the IRS--for some, the amount will be larger than the check they received when they won or settled their case. Here are a couple of news stories about those people:
Women Victors in Bias Suit Seek Tax Law Reform
Winners and Losers
These cases illustrate why we need your help in passing the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act, so that on April 15, 2004, there won't be any more winners who become losers that day.
More Information on the Civil Rights Tax Relief Act
Lobby Days for Tax Relief
Monday, April 14, 2003
On April 1, 2003, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on a judicial nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Carolyn Kuhl. That hearing, in itself, wasn't particularly extraordinary. What was extraordinary was that for the first time in recent memory, a hearing was held on a nominee upon which a home-state senator's "blue slip" had not been returned.
What Is a Blue Slip, and Why Does It Matter?
According to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy, a "blue slip" is
Notably, the "official" government web site on nominations reports the status of blue slips during the 107th Congress (the 2001-02 Congressional session), but not the 108th Congress (the 2003-04 Congressional session). Perhaps this is because the blue slip no longer seems to matter. When Sen. Orrin Hatch took over as chair of the Judiciary Committee in January, he announced that he would no longer honor the blue slip policy. "I'll give great weight to negative blue slips, but you can't have one senator holding up, for instance, circuit nominees. We're going to follow the Kennedy-Biden-Hatch policy, which basically says that blue slips will be given great weight but they're not dispositive. That's the way it should be." (See Salt Lake Tribune article) The "Kennedy-Biden" reference refers to when Democrats controlled the Senate during the tenures of Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush the elder. Then-chairs Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. Joseph Biden allowed judicial nominees to move forward if just one senator from a state submitted a positive blue slip. After Republicans won control of the Senate in 1994, Hatch himself changed the rules, refusing to move a nomination from Democratic President Clinton unless he had positive blue slip approvals from both senators. Former Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., used the tactic to block all of Clinton's court nominees from his state.
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has not returned a blue slip on Carolyn Kuhl, but Judge Kuhl's hearing nonetheless proceeded on April 1. (See Washington Times article.)
Scalia in a Skirt?
Sen. Boxer's opposition to Kuhl's nomination is one shared by many groups, including Workplace Fairness. Her record shows that she repeatedly sides with corporate interests and is an opponent of employees’ rights. As a lawyer in private practice, she worked to immunize corporations that defraud the government from claims by whistleblowers and argued that the courts should strictly limit punitive damages for corporate misconduct. And as a judge, she has been reversed repeatedly for rulings that favor corporate defendants and other wrongdoers over injured plaintiffs. One commentator recently noted that Kuhl shares many of the characteristics of other women nominated by the Bush Administration for federal judgeships, in an article posing the question, For a Woman to Get that Federal Court Nomination, Does She Have to be Scalia in a Skirt? The same claim has also been made by Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, who opined the day of Kuhl's hearing: “Not only is Bush the first president to appoint a smaller percentage of women to the federal bench than his predecessor, but the women he is nominating are Scalia in a skirt—women who never saw a woman’s legal right that they wanted to uphold." (See Kuhl Retracts Controversial Positions; Refuses To Opine on Abortion Rights.)
Unlike other nominees, who have steadfastly held to the positions they have taken prior to their nominations, Kuhl at least was willing to admin some of her past advocacy was wrongheaded. (See Washington Post article.) Kuhl said in her hearing that she "regrett[ed] taking the position I did," when asked about her efforts to retain Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status when it was racially segregated. Many fear that her efforts to distance herself from her past advocacy are merely designed to win her confirmation, however; once she is confirmed as a federal judge, she will not be bound by any of the statements she made in her hearing. And her lifetime appointment will prevent her from ever being recalled, regardless of the hypocrisy of any opinion when compared to her current assertions.
There remain many good reasons to oppose Carolyn Kuhl, even without the abrogation of the blue slip process. However, the combination of her extremist advocacy and the hypocrisy of Sen. Hatch's current blue slip policy should be enough to prevent her nomination from moving ahead. It hasn't happened yet, but it should. It will be very interesting to see how quickly the Judiciary Committee moves on Kuhl's nomination on their return from recess in late April. In the meantime, your Senators need to hear from you how you feel about this development. Please take action now by following the link below:
Demand Fair Judges: Stop Carolyn Kuhl
What Is a Blue Slip, and Why Does It Matter?
According to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Policy, a "blue slip" is
the traditional method of allowing the home state senators of a judicial nominee to express their approval or disapproval. Blue slips are generally given substantial weight by the Judiciary Committee in its consideration of a judicial nominee. The process dates back several decades and is grounded in the tradition of "senatorial courtesy", which traces its roots back to the presidency of George Washington.
See OLP Judicial Nominations Page.
Notably, the "official" government web site on nominations reports the status of blue slips during the 107th Congress (the 2001-02 Congressional session), but not the 108th Congress (the 2003-04 Congressional session). Perhaps this is because the blue slip no longer seems to matter. When Sen. Orrin Hatch took over as chair of the Judiciary Committee in January, he announced that he would no longer honor the blue slip policy. "I'll give great weight to negative blue slips, but you can't have one senator holding up, for instance, circuit nominees. We're going to follow the Kennedy-Biden-Hatch policy, which basically says that blue slips will be given great weight but they're not dispositive. That's the way it should be." (See Salt Lake Tribune article) The "Kennedy-Biden" reference refers to when Democrats controlled the Senate during the tenures of Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush the elder. Then-chairs Sen. Edward Kennedy and Sen. Joseph Biden allowed judicial nominees to move forward if just one senator from a state submitted a positive blue slip. After Republicans won control of the Senate in 1994, Hatch himself changed the rules, refusing to move a nomination from Democratic President Clinton unless he had positive blue slip approvals from both senators. Former Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., used the tactic to block all of Clinton's court nominees from his state.
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has not returned a blue slip on Carolyn Kuhl, but Judge Kuhl's hearing nonetheless proceeded on April 1. (See Washington Times article.)
Scalia in a Skirt?
Sen. Boxer's opposition to Kuhl's nomination is one shared by many groups, including Workplace Fairness. Her record shows that she repeatedly sides with corporate interests and is an opponent of employees’ rights. As a lawyer in private practice, she worked to immunize corporations that defraud the government from claims by whistleblowers and argued that the courts should strictly limit punitive damages for corporate misconduct. And as a judge, she has been reversed repeatedly for rulings that favor corporate defendants and other wrongdoers over injured plaintiffs. One commentator recently noted that Kuhl shares many of the characteristics of other women nominated by the Bush Administration for federal judgeships, in an article posing the question, For a Woman to Get that Federal Court Nomination, Does She Have to be Scalia in a Skirt? The same claim has also been made by Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, who opined the day of Kuhl's hearing: “Not only is Bush the first president to appoint a smaller percentage of women to the federal bench than his predecessor, but the women he is nominating are Scalia in a skirt—women who never saw a woman’s legal right that they wanted to uphold." (See Kuhl Retracts Controversial Positions; Refuses To Opine on Abortion Rights.)
Unlike other nominees, who have steadfastly held to the positions they have taken prior to their nominations, Kuhl at least was willing to admin some of her past advocacy was wrongheaded. (See Washington Post article.) Kuhl said in her hearing that she "regrett[ed] taking the position I did," when asked about her efforts to retain Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status when it was racially segregated. Many fear that her efforts to distance herself from her past advocacy are merely designed to win her confirmation, however; once she is confirmed as a federal judge, she will not be bound by any of the statements she made in her hearing. And her lifetime appointment will prevent her from ever being recalled, regardless of the hypocrisy of any opinion when compared to her current assertions.
There remain many good reasons to oppose Carolyn Kuhl, even without the abrogation of the blue slip process. However, the combination of her extremist advocacy and the hypocrisy of Sen. Hatch's current blue slip policy should be enough to prevent her nomination from moving ahead. It hasn't happened yet, but it should. It will be very interesting to see how quickly the Judiciary Committee moves on Kuhl's nomination on their return from recess in late April. In the meantime, your Senators need to hear from you how you feel about this development. Please take action now by following the link below:
Demand Fair Judges: Stop Carolyn Kuhl
Archive
