Why the regist the Senate Judiciary committee, this is about an hour and 15 minutes. Todays hearing is holocaustera insurance claim. I wont have an opening statement. All right, let me get settled in here. First of all, thank you mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and today we are discussing holocaustera insurance claims. It is interesting before and during the second world war, many europeans dpurchased their insurance policies to protect their loved ones. Those who survived and the heirs of those who did not have since attempted to collect the proceeds from those policies. However, bieneficiaries have found it difficult to collect these policies because paper work were left behind or destroyed during the genocide. To remedy this injustice, american insurance regulators, the state of israel and jewish and survival organizations and 1998 established acheck. The International Commission on holocaust era insurance claims. The mandate is very interesting was twofold. First, i check whe
Consolidated cases concerning whether federal civil rights law protects against sectoral orientation employment discrimination. This is one hour. This discrimination is because of sex, because the adverse employment action is based on the male employees that you to conform to a particular expectation on how men should behave, namely that men should be attractive only to women, and not men. There is no analytic difference between this discrimination in forms of discrimination already recognized. Example, discriminant discrimination against men who are effeminate. That discrimination is because of nonconformity with an expectation about how men should hate. The attempt to carve out discrimination against men for not being gay from title vii cannot be administered with consistency or integrity. In the words of the on bond Second Circuit, it forces judges been counting to determine whether or not discrimination is based on sex or orientation. That is futile, because when a man is discrimin
And may it please the court. Female employee who dates a man is not fired, title vii is violated. Discrimination against a man because he treats the man worse than those who want to do the same thing. This discrimination is because of sex, because the adverse employment action is based on the male employees that you to failure to conform to a particular expectation on how men should behave, namely that men should be attractive only to women, and not men. There is no analytic difference between this discrimination in forms of discrimination already recognized. For example, discrimination against men who are effeminate. Like the the discrimination here, that is because of nonconformity with an expectation about how men should have. The attempt to carve out discrimination against men for not being gay from title vii cannot be administered with consistency or integrity. In the words of the on bond Second Circuit, it forces judges to do lexical been counting to bean resort to lexical counti
Up next a hearing on holocaust era on insurance claims. Why the regist the Senate Judiciary committee, this is about an hour and 15 minutes. Todays hearing is holocaustera insurance claim. I wont have an opening statement. All right, let me get settled in here. First of all, thank you mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and today we are discussing holocaustera insurance claims. It is interesting before and during the second world war, many europeans dpurchased their insurance policies to protect their loved ones. Those who survived and the heirs of those who did not have since attempted to collect the proceeds from those policies. However, bieneficiaries have found it difficult to collect these policies because paper work were left behind or destroyed during the genocide. To remedy this injustice, american insurance regulators, the state of israel and jewish and survival organizations and 1998 established acheck. The International Commission on holocaust era insurance claims. The man
Reestablish that in the meantime why dont we handed off to professor and see if we can get this fixed. Apologies to you in the audience as well you would think after three years of covid we would have this down. Internet connections can bewo finicky. Arvard and North Carolina cases, affirmative action, racial in Higher Education have been taking since the issue first came to the Supreme Court in 1973. Since the 1978 the court has put strict limits starting with the university to enhance diversity in increasingly making fringe additional there after. As seen in the gruden and fisher cases, the university abide by these rules in the Supreme Court or the swing justices in this case pretended not to notice that universities were not abiding by the rules. Instead of engaging in what amounted just out publicly saying they were doing so. The closing status quo was distracted when students or sf fa filed a lawsuit against unc and harvard against unc under the equal protection clause and title