The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT —
"[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
Anyone who skims or peruses old Central Montanan newspapers from around the turn of the (19th) century cannot avoid noticing that the denizens of that region were (they still are!) mighty conservative—as in "classical liberal" or "libertarian." True, the conservative and dominant Fergus County Argus had competition, for a time, from the Fergus County Democrat, but these Democrats were not socialists. But, as its turns out, socialism did emerge—and soon fade—in Montana during the first two or three decades of the Twentieth Century, and it turns out that Lewistown, of all places, was the locus of the state's first socialist newspaper!.... READ MORE
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding President Trump’s travel ban on Tuesday came with a number of interesting wrinkles. It contained an implicit rebuke of Trump’s motives in signing the order, even though it let the order stand. And it repudiated Korematsu vs. United States, a discredited 1944 decision that allowed the U.S. to send Japanese-American citizens to internment camps during wartime, even as it upheld a policy with a discriminatory motive on grounds similar to that 70-year-old ruling….
. . .
… Sometimes the Court is willing to deem a government action constitutional by pretending that the government’s underlying purpose was something acceptable, rather than something forbidden. And sometimes the Court decides that even if a governmental action is or might be fully unconstitutional, there's simply nothing to be done about it by the justice system. In other words, the Court sometimes lets unconstitutional behavior stand. If Tuesday’s decision is read closely, it is possible to see both of those limits at work. Indeed, it is reasonable to read the opinions to mean that at least five Justices, not just the dissenting four, believe the President acted unconstitutionally in proclaiming his travel ban. But just because something is unconstitutional doesn’t mean that the Court will strike it down.
Consider first the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, which found a way to acknowledge the President’s unconstitutional motivations without concluding that the policy itself was unconstitutional. Roberts’s opinion spent no less than a page and a half chronicling some of Trump’s statements, as a candidate and as President, suggesting that the travel ban is motivated by anti-Muslim animus. (The ban, which restricts travel from Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Venezuela and North Korea, is the third version of an order that originally applied only to a group of Muslim countries.) An anti-Muslim motive would make the ban unconstitutional under the First Amendment, which forbids the government to disfavor particular religions. But that’s not what Roberts ruled. In the end, the Chief Justice decided for the President on the theory that the policy “can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds.” This is what constitutional lawyers call the “rational-basis test”: even if the actual reason the ban exists is rooted in an unconstitutional motive like religious bigotry, the Court will let the ban stand if the judges can imagine some legitimate interest that could have motivated the order….
"I'm Jimmy Carl Black and I'm the Indian of the group."
Some of you might remember the issue, several years ago, concerning a tenured IVC Librarian, Carol Wassman, whose conduct became a problem for the college. Ultimately, she was fired. Her firing led to a lawsuit, which Wassman lost in 2016. She appealed. She lost that too. The opinion was filed two weeks ago (it became available for publication on the 21st).
I know about the latter filing because, tonight, I somehow happened upon the recent opinion on a site called “Justia.” Not sure how that happened.
You can find it here:
The South Orange County Community College District (the District) dismissed Carol Wassmann from employment as a tenured librarian at Irvine Valley College (IVC) in April 2011. Several years later, Wassmann obtained a right to sue notice from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and brought this lawsuit against the District, Karima Feldhus, Robert Brumucci [sic], Glenn Roquemore, Lewis Long, and Katherine Schmeidler. Wassmann, who is African-American, alleged causes of action for racial discrimination, age discrimination, and harassment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and two other causes of action (not relevant here). The trial court granted two motions for summary judgment: one brought by the District Defendants and the other brought by Long and Schmeidler, on the ground the FEHA claims were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action was barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the statute of limitations. Wassmann appealed, but finding no reversible error in the grant of summary judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed.
I looked over the opinion, filed 6-12-18. Here’s some info based on that reading:
Back in 2010, Wassman’s dean (Feldus) tried to deal with what she judged to be Wassman’s unprofessional conduct. Here’s the beginning of the section of the opinion that discusses that alleged conduct:
(The section describing the struggle to curb W’s [alleged] excesses is long and remarkable. I won’t go through all of that here. See the above link.)
During this period, Wassman, as a member of the Faculty Association (union), was represented by two union officers: L Long and K Schmeidler.
I was a friend of Carol’s, having gotten to know her on the Senate. At some point, I met with her and urged her to accommodate the dean to keep her job. I gently suggested that, if she lost her job and sued, she would not likely prevail. (I felt strongly that she didn't have a leg to stand on. Her conduct, what I knew of it, struck me as very unprofessional.)
She was not disposed to take such advice. "You can't afford to lose this job," I told her. (I knew something about her circumstances.) But she was unmoved.
Ultimately, Wassman was dismissed as a tenured librarian. That was on April 2011.
Wassman filed her lawsuit Dec 2013.
District defendants: [Dean] Feldus, [Vice Chancellor] Bramacci, [IVC President] Roquemore
FA defendants (!): Long and Schmeidler.
Ultimately, Wassman offered six causes of action. (1) age discrimination, (2) racial discrimination—disparate treatment, (3) harassment (hostile environment), (4) wrongful termination, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) unfair business practices.
1, 2, 4, and 6 were applied to district defendants (i.e., Feldus, Bramucci, Roquemore).
3 and 5 were applied to all defendants (i.e., union officers Long and Schmeidler too).
Next: unsurprisingly, district defendants (Feldus, et al.) filed a motion for summary judgment. Long and Schmeidler also filed such a motion. This is a request that the court summarily deal with the case instead of going through all the trouble of a long trial. (I—i.e., my lawyer—made the same move in my 1st Amendment suit against the district in 1998.)
The trial court granted both motions.
That was a victory for defendants, a major loss for Wassman.
With regard to the district defendants: causes 1, 2, 3 were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and “res judicata,” which, according to my Mac’s dictionary, is “a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.”
Cause 5 failed because it was derivative of the above 3 causes, and because of the statute of limitations.
For L and S:
Cause 3 was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Cause 5 failed because it was derived from the first three and because of the statute of limitations. Also, for technical reasons (incompetence of filing), Wassman had not actually managed to oppose L and S’s motion.
Wassman appealed.
At the end of the appeals process, the original judgment was affirmed.
Well, again, if you're interested in the details, go here: Justia Opinion
Situations like this cause administrators to adopt a slew of unfortunate CYA behaviors.
Can't really blame 'em, I guess. Litigation is hell. People start saying amazing things at you. It's hard to process that. You kinda get used to it, I guess, but still....
Here's my latest post on the Family Jenni Blog. It concerns the existence of a Socialist Party and a Socialist newspaper, in Central Montana, in the early decades of the 20th Century: "Conflict within the ranks": the emergence and disappearance of Socialism in early Twentieth-Century Montana
