OA152: Discrimination is for Dick's?

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Law, Opinion, Politics, News, Liberal, Legal, Supremecourt, Harvard, Atheist

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

🗓️ 2 March 2018

⏱️ 85 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

In this rapid-response episode, Thomas and Andrew discuss the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals' en banc decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express, ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex applies to sexual orientation as well. This is a follow-up to our prior discussions of this issue back in Episode 60 and Episode 91. In the initial segment, Andrew tackles a question from Twitter about the James Damore lawsuit and employment law in general after our most recent coverage in Episode 150. After the main discussion of Zarda, the guys discuss some of the fallout from the Parkland shooting, including decisions by Dick's Sporting Goods and Wal-Mart to cease certain kinds of gun sales. Is this inappropriate age discrimination? Listen and find out! Finally, we end with an all-new TTTBE #65 about vegan criminal law. You won't want to miss it! Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode on Twitter or sharing it on Facebook along with your guess. We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

We discussed Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana back in Episode 60, and we discussed the panel decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91.
You can read the en banc decision of the Second Circuit in Zarda by clicking here.
In the "C" segment, the case discussed regarding Ladies' Night is Koire v. Metro Car Wash, 707 P.2d 195 (Cal. 1985).

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Your honor, I object!
0:05.0	And why is that Mr. Reed?
0:07.0	Because it's devastating to my case!
0:19.0	I did you know, the murders, but as you're all so looking forward to this, I thought I'd keep not guilty.
0:31.0	They say a man who represents himself as a fool for a client.
0:35.0	Well, with God as my witness, I am that fool!
0:45.0	Mr. Simpson, this is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film the never-ending store.
0:53.0	Welcome to Opening Arguments, a podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer.
1:00.0	This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of P.A.T.R.S. LLC for Entertainment purposes, is not intended as legal advice and does not form an attorney-client relationship.
1:09.0	Don't take legal advice from a podcast.
1:13.0	Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments, this is episode 152.
1:22.0	I'm your host Thomas Smith, that over there is your other host, Andrew Torres.
1:25.0	Andrew, we just, you and I finally heard the new intro.
1:29.0	We're on a delay.
1:32.0	How about it?
1:33.0	I love all of our intros.
1:35.0	Oh, go, go, go.
1:36.0	No, I just asked you, how about it?
1:38.0	What did you think?
1:40.0	I love all of our intros.
1:41.0	It's like choosing between children, but I think I like this one an awful lot.
1:46.0	But we all have a favorite child.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.