|
Joshua Erlich@joshuaerlich.bsky.social |
this is full on nonsense. nothing in Bostock depended on a "but for" standard. it was a textual ruling on the meaning of "sex." this is fully made up bullshit.
4 replies 11 reposts 37 likes
|
Indiscreet Function
@homotopic.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Also... Title VII does not have a but-for standard (doesn't matter, as you say, but)
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Kaitlin Has Had Enough
@gothamgirlblue.com
[ View ] |
—whispers into the ether— Affirm the ERA…
0 replies 0 reposts 15 likes
|
Ni en pedo
@300ps.bsky.social
[ View ] |
District of North Texas is overworked trying to run the country by judicial fiat, we're throwing a case Mississippi's way.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Joshua Erlich
@joshuaerlich.bsky.social
[ View ] |
there's no part of Bostock that indicates that the outcomes would have been different under a motivating factor standard. the case ruled that the plaintiffs suffered discrimination on the basis of sex and clarified the meaning of "sex" in a discrimination context.
1 replies 2 reposts 21 likes