Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Telegram ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

OA60: Sex and Sexual Orientation (Patreon)

Published:
2017-04-13 23:22:25
Imported:
2022-10

Downloads

Content

In this episode, we take a look at a landmark decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.

First, though, we tackle a question from listener Justin Wilder who wants to know about serving a subpoena on Amazon for evidence in a civil case related to information that might be stored on your Echo.  We love that our listeners are becoming civil procedure geeks!

In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the landmark Hively decision and discusses what it means and what the likely future of the case will be.

After that, fan favorite Breakin' Down the Law returns with an examination of South Dakota SB 149 which extends protections to adoption agencies in the state with (wait for it) sincerely held religious or moral beliefs.

Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #19 that asks about diversity jurisdiction in federal court between two companies.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)!

Recent Appearances:

Andrew just recorded a two-part episode of the Embrace the Void Podcast; you can (and should!) give Episode 5 a listen right here.

Show Notes & Links

  1. FRCP 45 governs subpoenas.
  2. This is the Supreme Court's Opinion in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana.
  3. And here is the link to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
  4. This is the text of South Dakota SB 149, which allows adoption agencies to discriminate on the basis of a sincerely held religious or moral belief.

Files

Comments

Anonymous

You know, I kept telling myself that this was just regarding a motion to dismiss, but at some point toward the end it seemed that Andrew had moved into n somehow and there was some kind of final verdict. I've since gone back and re-listened... now I see. So now we get to have a complete hearing at the 7th, right?

Anonymous

Somewhere around the 43rd minute it is made clear that this is just a motion to dismiss...and that the College can, at a later date, have the opportunity to show that her sex/orientation had nothing to do with her firing - and they may very well be able to do that... so this is not yet a resolved matter, right? Yet, somewhere in the 53rd minute Andrew says this case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. I think that's where I got thrown off. I thought Andrew was saying this case is now going to be appealed to the Supreme Court as if it had already been heard and decided. It hasn't. But, I think what Andrew was saying is: Regardless of how this case is decided, the losing side will appeal and it will likely be heard. Does that sound right?

law
>>4739501

The losing party is free to appeal the decision of the 7th Circuit to the Supreme Court, which would stay the effect of the judgment and prevent remand on the facts. However, I've heard buzz that the college might not appeal, which would be VERY interesting. We'll discuss on the next OA (on Tuesday).