

Strewed over with hurts since 2004
Arthur L. Aidala, one of the defense lawyers, described the juror, who works in information technology at a bank, as “meek.” Mr. Aidala called the man a “25-year-old kid who lives with his grandmother” and “a computer kid” and he argued that the man’s concerns should be examined further before being brushed aside....
Justice Farber appeared unmoved and denied the defense motion, noting that the man had never said any of the jurors were being threatened. The juror’s statements were vague, the judge said, adding that perhaps “his youth makes him uncomfortable to experiencing conflict.”
Maybe these young people today aren't up to debating about different opinions, but is the problem with this one juror who came forward to report his discomfort, or is it with the jurors who are, supposedly, doing the shunning? Maybe they don't want to hear what they don't agree with. What if the new generation is losing the capacity to serve on a jury?!
Read the full discussion, at Grok.
Writes Trump, at Truth Social.
Meanwhile, at X, Elon is posting about Trump more than I'm keeping up with.
Everyone was talking about how close they were — too close! — and now they're big enemies.
Are you watching these 2 drama queens? If so, carry on in the comments. I'm averting my eyes.
The standards for proving workplace discrimination under a federal civil rights law, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court, “does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.”...The text of the law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, does not draw distinctions based on whether the person claiming discrimination is a member of a majority group. But some courts have required plaintiffs from majority groups to prove an additional element if they lack direct evidence of discrimination: “background circumstances that support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
It's not that unusual!