Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It shouldn't be. NC is correct on this. EEOC is Federal. Alleged Civil Rights violations are Federal. That's why both the Illinois school district case, and now a similar school district case in Virginia were/are in FEDERAL courts.
They can file EEOC violations in either Federal or State court in Illinois and Virginia, although some cases end up in federal court employers can be sued in state court, that is not true in NC and Miss.
They can file EEOC violations in either Federal or State court in Illinois and Virginia, although some cases end up in federal court employers can be sued in state court, that is not true in NC and Miss.
That makes no sense. How does a state court have authority in a matter of FEDERAL jurisdiction? It doesn't. NC knows that such a case filed in state court using federal law is subject to removal, which means that a defendant employer's request to move the case to federal court because it involves a federal statute is honored. NC is streamlining the process so both the filer's and the state's resources aren't wasted.
That makes no sense. How does a state court have authority in a matter of FEDERAL jurisdiction? It doesn't. NC knows that such a case filed in state court using federal law is subject to removal, which means that a defendant employer's request to move the case to federal court because it involves a federal statute is honored. NC is streamlining the process so both the filer's and the state's resources aren't wasted.
States have their own employment and public accommodation laws. Why should people go to the federal courts over STATE laws. Or are you claiming that states do not have the authority to enforce state laws?
States have their own employment and public accommodation laws. Why should people go to the federal courts over STATE laws.
I've already explained this. When state and federal law overlaps, the defendant can petition for removal to federal court and it will be granted. NC is just preserving everyone's (filer's and the state's) resources by legislating this reality.
I've already explained this. When state and federal law overlaps, the defendant can petition for removal to federal court and it will be granted. NC is just preserving everyone's (filer's and the state's) resources by legislating this reality.
They CAN, but now the ability to take violations of STATE law to a STATE court has been removed.
So at one time if there was a violation of a state law one could sue in state court, not anymore.
We're talking about MINORS, and there are not enough individual changing stalls for all students who need to use them at any given time. AND there are not individual shower stalls at all. When's the last time you've been in a school locker room?
Furthermore, the issue isn't just in schools, the problem goes beyond that to other places where MINORS could be exposed to felony indecent exposure (codified as such due to age of victim), as well... park district sports facilities locker rooms and showers, public park pool changing facilities and showers, state park campground restrooms and shower facilities, etc., etc.
I'm an adult, I don't go into school locker rooms....though I am getting a kick out of your blatant hypocrisy. So it is okay for a boy to expose himself to another boy, but a boy exposes himself to a girl is a felony.
Don't worry about it, North Carolinians. Four hundred employees? Lol, Wegmans employs far more than 400 in just one of its stores. And they're proceeding with plans to enter the NC market.
They CAN, but now the ability to take violations of STATE law to a STATE court has been removed.
Federal law has in effect already done so, anyway.
As already explained:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
It doesn't have to be only a Federal issue to be removed to Federal court.
Federal statute provides for the removal from state to federal court by a defendant of any civil action which could have been brought originally in a federal district court, with no diversity of citizenship required in “federal question” cases.
I'm an adult, I don't go into school locker rooms....
Can you guarantee that no adult trans with the opposite genitalia of the gender posted on the door will ever be present in park district locker room and/or shower facilities? public beach facilities? state park facilities? etc.? when MINORS are present?
Your complete disregard of MINORS' rights to NOT be unwillingly subjected to FELONY indecent exposure sexual abuse is reprehensible.
Federal law has in effect already done so, anyway.
It is not the place of a federal court to have to hear cases regarding state law violations. The NC governor said that the states protections exceed federal protections. The federal courts are going to rule based on federal law, not the states laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
