Bench Memos

Re: PFAW Opposes Southwick

I see that PFAW still can’t report a case fairly and accurately.  Here’s PFAW’s lead item against Southwick:

 

In 1998, Southwick joined a ruling in an employment case that upheld the reinstatement, without any punishment whatsoever, of a white state employee who was fired for calling an African American co-worker a “good ole nigger.” The court’s decision effectively ratified a hearing officer’s opinion that the slur was only “somewhat derogatory” and “was in effect calling the individual a ‘teacher’s pet.’” The Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision.

 

The first sentence is accurate.  The second sentence relies on the weasely phrase “effectively ratified” to obscure the fact that Southwick’s court was reviewing the decision of an en banc administrative body, not the opinion of the individual hearing officer, and that the narrow question that the court addressed (under its “limited scope of review”) was whether the administrative body “erred as a matter of law in holding that [the] evidence was sufficient to support a finding that [the employee] had met her burden of persuasion to show that her remark was not so egregious, either in its intended or its actual effect, that ‘to continue the employee in the assigned position could constitute negligence in regard to the agency’s duties to the public or to other state employees.’”

 

The third sentence is grossly misleading.  As I explained two weeks ago:

In fact, the majority ruling of the Mississippi supreme court, on appeal, agreed with the lower court that termination was not an appropriate remedy:  “Under the particular circumstances of this case, Bonnie Richmond’s use of a racial slur on a single occasion does not rise to level of creating a hostile work environment, and therefore does not warrant dismissal of her from employment with DHS.”   

The Mississippi supreme court somewhat altered the judgment that Southwick’s court had reached, as it remanded the case to the administrative agency “for the imposition of a lesser penalty, or to make detailed findings on the record why no penalty should be imposed.”  That’s the minor sense in which it’s technically true that there was a unanimous reversal. 

 

Ed Whelan — Ed Whelan is a leading commentator on nominations to the Supreme Court and the lower courts and on issues of constitutional law.

Most Popular

U.S.

Two Minnesota Republican Candidates Assaulted

Two Republican candidates for state office in Minnesota have been physically assaulted in recent days, leading prominent Republican lawmakers to caution their Democratic colleagues against employing inflammatory rhetoric. Republican state representative Sarah Anderson was punched in the arm last week after ... Read More
PC Culture

Warren Is a Fraud

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has been telling a story for years. It’s a deeply romantic story about her parents and their young love, fraught with the familial bigotry of an earlier time. Here’s how she told it this week in a video she released in preparation for her 2020 run: My daddy always said he ... Read More
Elections

The State of the Race for the House

Way back in January, I went through the then-34 seats where a Republican incumbent was retiring and concluded that most were in deeply red districts and not likely to flip to Democrats. Pollsters and media organizations are less inclined to conduct surveys of House races, both because there’s less public ... Read More