Blog

People Are Just Now Understanding the Impact of the Employment Act Donald Trump Revoked on Workers Trump’s Revocation of Key Employment Act Sparks Debate Over Its Impact on Workers Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has wasted no time making his mark on his second term. Within hours of his inauguration on January 20, Trump signed 25 executive orders addressing a variety of issues, including halting the ban on TikTok, revising immigration laws, and controversially declaring that “there are only two genders.” Among these sweeping actions, one of the most contentious decisions came on January 21, when Trump signed an executive order aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across government agencies. This move included revoking Executive Order 11246, which had been in place since 1965 and was designed to protect workers from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. The new order sends a clear message that DEI programs in federal agencies will be eliminated immediately, with Department of Labor employees responsible for enforcing these policies reportedly placed on paid leave, according to The New Republic. What the Revoked Employment Act Means Executive Order 11246 has long been a cornerstone of workplace protections, ensuring equal opportunity for underrepresented groups, including women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community. Advocates of the order have argued that it levels the playing field for minorities and promotes inclusivity in hiring practices and career advancement opportunities. Trump’s revocation, however, targets what he describes as “radical and wasteful government diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.” The order prioritizes investigating compliance within large organizations, including publicly traded corporations, major non-profits, educational institutions with billion-dollar endowments, and professional associations. The administration argues that such measures will prevent companies from prioritizing race or gender in their hiring practices, focusing instead on merit-based decisions. Critics, however, believe the decision will roll back decades of progress in combating workplace discrimination. Many fear it sends a message that inclusivity is no longer a priority for the federal government, potentially opening the door to systemic inequities in hiring and career advancement. Mixed Reactions from Public Figures and Online Communities Trump’s decision has sparked significant backlash online and from public figures. Critics argue that dismantling DEI programs undermines protections for minorities and marginalized groups in the workplace. Basil Smikle Jr., a political strategist and policy advisor, expressed concern about the broader implications of the move. “There’s this clear effort to hinder, if not erode, the political and economic power of people of color and women,” Smikle said. “What it does is open up the door for more cronyism.” Others have echoed these sentiments on social media. One Twitter user remarked, “Good for straight white males. Bad for everyone else,” reflecting the widespread belief that the changes disproportionately benefit those already in positions of privilege. Public outcry has grown, with calls for the administration to reconsider its stance. Advocates for workplace diversity have warned that the removal of DEI programs could lead to increased discrimination and a loss of opportunities for underrepresented groups. Trump’s order has received some criticism online (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) Supporters Defend the Move While criticism has been widespread, not everyone opposes the changes. Supporters argue that removing DEI requirements eliminates preferential treatment and ensures a truly merit-based system. Louisiana Senator John Kennedy defended the order, telling USA Today reporters, “The best way to stop discriminating against people on the basis of race or gender is to stop discriminating against people on the basis of race and gender.” Kennedy further emphasized that many Americans do not prioritize race or gender as much as policymakers in Washington. “The truth is the American people don’t think about race or gender nearly as much as some folks in Washington want to pretend,” he said. Proponents believe that the changes will foster a more equitable system by removing what they perceive as reverse discrimination. They argue that the order prevents employers from making decisions based solely on identity markers like race or gender, thereby promoting fairness in hiring practices. The Potential Consequences The revocation of Executive Order 11246 is likely to have far-reaching consequences for workers, employers, and the broader economy. Advocates warn that without federal oversight and DEI initiatives, systemic discrimination in hiring and promotion could resurface, particularly in industries historically dominated by certain demographics. Moreover, critics argue that removing DEI programs sends a discouraging message to minorities and underrepresented groups who may feel less supported in the workplace. This could impact employee morale and create a less inclusive work environment. On the other hand, supporters argue that the move could reduce bureaucracy and ensure that hiring decisions are based on qualifications and merit rather than quotas or identity-driven initiatives. They see the rollback as a way to streamline processes and promote true equality. Looking Ahead As the debate continues, the long-term effects of Trump’s decision remain to be seen. For now, the revocation of DEI programs has become a polarizing issue, dividing opinions across political and social lines. Critics see it as a rollback of progress, while supporters view it as a step toward fairness. In the weeks and months ahead, the administration’s implementation of this executive order will be closely watched. Both supporters and opponents agree on one thing: the impact on workers and workplaces across the country will be significant. As the nation grapples with these changes, the broader conversation about equity, inclusion, and opportunity in the workplace is unlikely to fade anytime soon.

- by Dailyznews13 - Leave a Comment

People Are Just Now Understanding the Impact of the Employment Act Donald Trump Revoked on Workers Trump’s Revocation of Key Employment Act Sparks Debate Over Its Impact on Workers Since …

People Are Just Now Understanding the Impact of the Employment Act Donald Trump Revoked on Workers Trump’s Revocation of Key Employment Act Sparks Debate Over Its Impact on Workers Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has wasted no time making his mark on his second term. Within hours of his inauguration on January 20, Trump signed 25 executive orders addressing a variety of issues, including halting the ban on TikTok, revising immigration laws, and controversially declaring that “there are only two genders.” Among these sweeping actions, one of the most contentious decisions came on January 21, when Trump signed an executive order aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across government agencies. This move included revoking Executive Order 11246, which had been in place since 1965 and was designed to protect workers from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin. The new order sends a clear message that DEI programs in federal agencies will be eliminated immediately, with Department of Labor employees responsible for enforcing these policies reportedly placed on paid leave, according to The New Republic. What the Revoked Employment Act Means Executive Order 11246 has long been a cornerstone of workplace protections, ensuring equal opportunity for underrepresented groups, including women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community. Advocates of the order have argued that it levels the playing field for minorities and promotes inclusivity in hiring practices and career advancement opportunities. Trump’s revocation, however, targets what he describes as “radical and wasteful government diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.” The order prioritizes investigating compliance within large organizations, including publicly traded corporations, major non-profits, educational institutions with billion-dollar endowments, and professional associations. The administration argues that such measures will prevent companies from prioritizing race or gender in their hiring practices, focusing instead on merit-based decisions. Critics, however, believe the decision will roll back decades of progress in combating workplace discrimination. Many fear it sends a message that inclusivity is no longer a priority for the federal government, potentially opening the door to systemic inequities in hiring and career advancement. Mixed Reactions from Public Figures and Online Communities Trump’s decision has sparked significant backlash online and from public figures. Critics argue that dismantling DEI programs undermines protections for minorities and marginalized groups in the workplace. Basil Smikle Jr., a political strategist and policy advisor, expressed concern about the broader implications of the move. “There’s this clear effort to hinder, if not erode, the political and economic power of people of color and women,” Smikle said. “What it does is open up the door for more cronyism.” Others have echoed these sentiments on social media. One Twitter user remarked, “Good for straight white males. Bad for everyone else,” reflecting the widespread belief that the changes disproportionately benefit those already in positions of privilege. Public outcry has grown, with calls for the administration to reconsider its stance. Advocates for workplace diversity have warned that the removal of DEI programs could lead to increased discrimination and a loss of opportunities for underrepresented groups. Trump’s order has received some criticism online (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) Supporters Defend the Move While criticism has been widespread, not everyone opposes the changes. Supporters argue that removing DEI requirements eliminates preferential treatment and ensures a truly merit-based system. Louisiana Senator John Kennedy defended the order, telling USA Today reporters, “The best way to stop discriminating against people on the basis of race or gender is to stop discriminating against people on the basis of race and gender.” Kennedy further emphasized that many Americans do not prioritize race or gender as much as policymakers in Washington. “The truth is the American people don’t think about race or gender nearly as much as some folks in Washington want to pretend,” he said. Proponents believe that the changes will foster a more equitable system by removing what they perceive as reverse discrimination. They argue that the order prevents employers from making decisions based solely on identity markers like race or gender, thereby promoting fairness in hiring practices. The Potential Consequences The revocation of Executive Order 11246 is likely to have far-reaching consequences for workers, employers, and the broader economy. Advocates warn that without federal oversight and DEI initiatives, systemic discrimination in hiring and promotion could resurface, particularly in industries historically dominated by certain demographics. Moreover, critics argue that removing DEI programs sends a discouraging message to minorities and underrepresented groups who may feel less supported in the workplace. This could impact employee morale and create a less inclusive work environment. On the other hand, supporters argue that the move could reduce bureaucracy and ensure that hiring decisions are based on qualifications and merit rather than quotas or identity-driven initiatives. They see the rollback as a way to streamline processes and promote true equality. Looking Ahead As the debate continues, the long-term effects of Trump’s decision remain to be seen. For now, the revocation of DEI programs has become a polarizing issue, dividing opinions across political and social lines. Critics see it as a rollback of progress, while supporters view it as a step toward fairness. In the weeks and months ahead, the administration’s implementation of this executive order will be closely watched. Both supporters and opponents agree on one thing: the impact on workers and workplaces across the country will be significant. As the nation grapples with these changes, the broader conversation about equity, inclusion, and opportunity in the workplace is unlikely to fade anytime soon. Read More

Prosecutor Fani Willis is removed from the Georgia election case against Trump and others ATLANTA (AP) — A state appeals court on Thursday removed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump and others, the latest legal victory for the president-elect in criminal cases that once threatened his career and freedom. The case against Trump and more than a dozen others had already been stalled for months over an appeal related to a romantic relationship Willis had with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had hired to lead the case. Citing an “appearance of impropriety” that might not typically warrant such a removal, a Georgia Court of Appeals panel said in a 2-1 ruling that “this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.” Willis’ office immediately filed a notice of intent to ask the Georgia Supreme Court to review the decision. But pursuing a criminal case against a sitting president is a virtual impossibility. And Trump will return to the White House having overcome efforts to prosecute him and empowered by a Supreme Court ruling granting him presumptive immunity for any “official acts” he takes in office. The development comes weeks after Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith abandoned two federal prosecutions against the incoming president, and as sentencing in a separate hush money case in New York is indefinitely on hold as a result of Trump’s victory in November over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. A grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others in August 2023, using the state’s anti-racketeering law to accuse them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn Trump’s narrow 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia. The alleged scheme included Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to help find enough votes to beat Biden. Four people have pleaded guilty. Trump told Fox News Digital that the case “should not be allowed to go any further.” The president-elect added: “Everybody should receive an apology, including those wonderful patriots who have been caught up in this for years.” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said the ruling was “well-reasoned and just.” He said the appeals court “highlighted that Willis’ misconduct created an ‘odor of mendacity’ and an appearance of impropriety that could only be cured by the disqualification of her and her entire office.” “This decision puts an end to a politically motivated persecution of the next President of the United States,” Sadow wrote in an emailed statement. Representatives for Willis did not immediately respond to a text message seeking comment on the ruling. The allegations that Willis had improperly benefited from her romance with Wade resulted in a tumultuous couple of months in the case as intimate details of Willis and Wade’s personal lives were aired in court in mid-February. A defendant’s motion alleged that Willis and Wade were involved in an inappropriate romantic relationship and that Willis paid Wade large sums for his work and then benefited when he paid for lavish vacations. Willis and Wade acknowledged the relationship but said they didn’t begin dating until the spring of 2022. Wade was hired in November 2021, and their romance ended in the summer of 2023, they said. They also testified that they split travel and other costs roughly evenly, with Willis often paying expenses or reimbursing Wade in cash. Speaking at a historically Black church in Atlanta soon after the relationship allegations surfaced, Willis defended Wade’s qualifications and her own leadership of her office. Defense lawyers said that speech included a series of improper and prejudicial comments against the defendants and their legal team, poisoning any potential jurors against them. The appeals court majority opinion, written by Judge Trenton Brown and joined by Judge Todd Markle, said “the remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.” In a dissenting opinion, Judge Benjamin Land wrote that “the law does not support the result reached by the majority.” Trial court judges, he said, have broad discretion to to impose a remedy to fit a situation and the appeals court should respect that. “We are here to ensure the law has been applied correctly and to correct harmful legal errors when we see them. It is not our job to second-guess trial judges or to substitute our judgment for theirs,” he wrote. “Where, as here, a prosecutor has no actual conflict of interest and the trial court, based on the evidence presented to it, rejects the allegations of actual impropriety, we have no authority to reverse the trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify,” he said, arguing that the majority opinion goes against decades of precedent in Georgia. The ruling by the appeals court panel means it will be up to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia to find another prosecutor to take over the case, though that could be delayed if the state Supreme Court takes the case. It could be difficult to find another prosecutor willing to take it on given the extensive resources needed to prosecute the sprawling and complex case. That person could continue on the track that Willis has taken, decide to pursue only some charges or dismiss the case altogether. Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, the trial court judge, had ruled in March that no conflict of interest existed that should force Willis off the case. Trump and the others appealed that ruling. McAfee wrote that the prosecution was “encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.” He said Willis could remain on the case only if Wade left; the special prosecutor submitted his resignation hours later. ____ Associated Press writers Eric Tucker in Washington and Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report.

- by Dailyznews13 - Leave a Comment

Prosecutor Fani Willis is removed from the Georgia election case against Trump and others ATLANTA (AP) — A state appeals court on Thursday removed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis …

Prosecutor Fani Willis is removed from the Georgia election case against Trump and others ATLANTA (AP) — A state appeals court on Thursday removed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump and others, the latest legal victory for the president-elect in criminal cases that once threatened his career and freedom. The case against Trump and more than a dozen others had already been stalled for months over an appeal related to a romantic relationship Willis had with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she had hired to lead the case. Citing an “appearance of impropriety” that might not typically warrant such a removal, a Georgia Court of Appeals panel said in a 2-1 ruling that “this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.” Willis’ office immediately filed a notice of intent to ask the Georgia Supreme Court to review the decision. But pursuing a criminal case against a sitting president is a virtual impossibility. And Trump will return to the White House having overcome efforts to prosecute him and empowered by a Supreme Court ruling granting him presumptive immunity for any “official acts” he takes in office. The development comes weeks after Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith abandoned two federal prosecutions against the incoming president, and as sentencing in a separate hush money case in New York is indefinitely on hold as a result of Trump’s victory in November over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris. A grand jury in Atlanta indicted Trump and 18 others in August 2023, using the state’s anti-racketeering law to accuse them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn Trump’s narrow 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden in Georgia. The alleged scheme included Trump’s call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger urging him to help find enough votes to beat Biden. Four people have pleaded guilty. Trump told Fox News Digital that the case “should not be allowed to go any further.” The president-elect added: “Everybody should receive an apology, including those wonderful patriots who have been caught up in this for years.” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said the ruling was “well-reasoned and just.” He said the appeals court “highlighted that Willis’ misconduct created an ‘odor of mendacity’ and an appearance of impropriety that could only be cured by the disqualification of her and her entire office.” “This decision puts an end to a politically motivated persecution of the next President of the United States,” Sadow wrote in an emailed statement. Representatives for Willis did not immediately respond to a text message seeking comment on the ruling. The allegations that Willis had improperly benefited from her romance with Wade resulted in a tumultuous couple of months in the case as intimate details of Willis and Wade’s personal lives were aired in court in mid-February. A defendant’s motion alleged that Willis and Wade were involved in an inappropriate romantic relationship and that Willis paid Wade large sums for his work and then benefited when he paid for lavish vacations. Willis and Wade acknowledged the relationship but said they didn’t begin dating until the spring of 2022. Wade was hired in November 2021, and their romance ended in the summer of 2023, they said. They also testified that they split travel and other costs roughly evenly, with Willis often paying expenses or reimbursing Wade in cash. Speaking at a historically Black church in Atlanta soon after the relationship allegations surfaced, Willis defended Wade’s qualifications and her own leadership of her office. Defense lawyers said that speech included a series of improper and prejudicial comments against the defendants and their legal team, poisoning any potential jurors against them. The appeals court majority opinion, written by Judge Trenton Brown and joined by Judge Todd Markle, said “the remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring.” In a dissenting opinion, Judge Benjamin Land wrote that “the law does not support the result reached by the majority.” Trial court judges, he said, have broad discretion to to impose a remedy to fit a situation and the appeals court should respect that. “We are here to ensure the law has been applied correctly and to correct harmful legal errors when we see them. It is not our job to second-guess trial judges or to substitute our judgment for theirs,” he wrote. “Where, as here, a prosecutor has no actual conflict of interest and the trial court, based on the evidence presented to it, rejects the allegations of actual impropriety, we have no authority to reverse the trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify,” he said, arguing that the majority opinion goes against decades of precedent in Georgia. The ruling by the appeals court panel means it will be up to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia to find another prosecutor to take over the case, though that could be delayed if the state Supreme Court takes the case. It could be difficult to find another prosecutor willing to take it on given the extensive resources needed to prosecute the sprawling and complex case. That person could continue on the track that Willis has taken, decide to pursue only some charges or dismiss the case altogether. Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, the trial court judge, had ruled in March that no conflict of interest existed that should force Willis off the case. Trump and the others appealed that ruling. McAfee wrote that the prosecution was “encumbered by an appearance of impropriety.” He said Willis could remain on the case only if Wade left; the special prosecutor submitted his resignation hours later. ____ Associated Press writers Eric Tucker in Washington and Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report. Read More