sues

NSA employee sues Trump administration over order on transgender rights and two ‘immutable’ genders

A transgender employee of the National Security Agency is suing the Trump administration and seeking to block enforcement of a presidential executive order and other policies the employee says violate federal civil rights law.

Sarah O’Neill, an NSA data scientist who is transgender, is challenging President Trump’s Inauguration Day executive order that required the federal government, in all operations and printed materials, to recognize only two “immutable” sexes: male and female.

According to the lawsuit filed Monday in a U.S. District Court in Maryland, Trump’s order “declares that it is the policy of the United States government to deny Ms. O’Neill’s very existence.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The order, which reflected Trump’s 2024 campaign rhetoric, spurred policies that O’Neill is challenging, as well.

Since Trump’s initial executive action, O’Neill asserts the NSA has canceled its policy recognizing her transgender identity and “right to a workplace free of unlawful harassment,” while “prohibiting her from identifying her pronouns as female in written communications” and “barring her from using the women’s restroom at work.”

O’Neill contends those policies and the orders behind them create a hostile work environment and violate Section VII of the Civil Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that Section VII’s prohibition on discrimination based on sex applied to gender identity.

“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex,” the court’s majority opinion stated. “But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”

O’Neill’s lawsuit argued, “The Executive Order rejects the existence of gender identity altogether, let alone the possibility that someone’s gender identity can differ from their sex, which it characterizes as ‘gender ideology.’ ”

In addition to restoring her workplace rights and protections, O’Neill is seeking financial damages.

Trump’s order was among a flurry of executive actions he took hours after taking office. He has continued using executive action aggressively in his second presidency, prompting many legal challenges that are still working their way through the federal judiciary.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Trump sues BBC for $10 billion, accusing it of defamation over editing of president’s Jan. 6 speech

President Trump filed a lawsuit Monday seeking $10 billion in damages from the BBC, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices.

The 33-page lawsuit accuses the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” calling it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

It accused the BBC of “splicing together two entirely separate parts of President Trump’s speech on January 6, 2021” in order to “intentionally misrepresent the meaning of what President Trump said.”

The lawsuit, filed in a Florida court, seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and $5 billion for unfair trade practices.

The BBC said it would defend the case.

“We are not going to make further comment on ongoing legal proceedings,” it said in a statement.

The broadcaster apologized last month to Trump over the edit of the Jan. 6 speech. But the publicly funded BBC rejected claims it had defamed him, after Trump threatened legal action.

BBC chairman Samir Shah had called it an “error of judgment,” which triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news.

The speech took place before some of Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as Congress was poised to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election that Trump falsely alleged was stolen from him.

The BBC had broadcast the hourlong documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

Trump said earlier Monday that he was suing the BBC “for putting words in my mouth.”

“They actually put terrible words in my mouth having to do with Jan. 6 that I didn’t say, and they’re beautiful words, that I said, right?” the president said unprompted during an appearance in the Oval Office. “They’re beautiful words, talking about patriotism and all of the good things that I said. They didn’t say that, but they put terrible words.”

The president’s lawsuit was filed in Florida. Deadlines to bring the case in British courts expired more than a year ago.

Legal experts have brought up potential challenges to a case in the U.S. given that the documentary was not shown in the country.

The lawsuit alleges that people in the U.S. can watch the BBC’s original content, including the “Panorama” series, which included the documentary, by using the subscription streaming platform BritBox or a virtual private network service.

The 103-year-old BBC is a national institution funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by every household that watches live TV or BBC content. Bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial, it typically faces especially intense scrutiny and criticism from both conservatives and liberals.

Source link

Best paid stars at BBC as Donald Trump sues broadcaster for $5billion

As Donald Trump threatens legal action against the Beeb, the Mirror takes a look at the broadcaster’s most recent list of top earners, which includes some surprises

US President Donald Trump is suing the BBC to the tune of $5 billion, yesterday claiming, “they put words in my mouth”.

POTUS is here referring to an episode of Panorama which aired a week before the 2024 US election, which showed comments he made to supporters ahead of the deadly 2021 Capitol riots. The episode appears to show Trump telling crowds: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you, and we fight. We fight like hell.”

However, these words were created from different segments of the 79-year-old’s speech, delivered nearly one hour apart. The BBC has since issued an apology over the edit, admitting to an “error of judgment” while clarifying there was no legal basis for Trump’s claim. As the row continues, the Mirror takes a look at the Beeb’s list of top earners.

READ MORE: Donald Trump sues BBC $5 billion for Panorama speech edit: ‘They put words in my mouth’

Back in July, the BBC published the salaries of its highest-paid stars as part of its annual report, and a number of significant changes amongst the top earners. Former Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker, who this year left the corporation was once again the top earner with a take home salary of £1.35million. This was followed by former Radio 2 breakfast host Zoe Ball, who took home £515,000 despite being replaced on the Breakfast Show by Scott Mills.

Match of the Day Host Alan Shearer emerged as the third highest paid BBC star of the year, increasing his salary from the year before after covering the Euros last year. The former Newcastle star boosted his paycheck to almost half a million pounds with his punditry at the tournament.

Radio host and political expert Nick Robinson also had a pay rise last year, while Radio 2 host Vernon Kay joined the top 10 for the first time. Perhaps surprisingly, BBC North America Editor Justin Webb also made the top 10, with a very impressive salary of £365,000.

The BBC’s top earners:

  1. Gary Lineker £1,350,000-£1,354,999 (no change)
  2. Zoe Ball £515,000-£519,999 (down from £950,000-£954,999)
  3. Alan Shearer £440,000-445,000 (up from £380,000-£384,999)
  4. Greg James £425,000-£429,999 (up from £415,000-£419,999)
  5. Fiona Bruce £410,000-£414,999 (up from £405,000-£409,999) and Nick Robinson £410,000-£414,999 (Up from £345,000 and £349,000)
  6. Stephen Nolan £405,000-£409,999 (up from £400,000-£404,999)
  7. Laura Kuenssberg £395,000-£399,999 (up from £325,000-£329,999)
  8. Vernon Kay £390,000 – £394,999 (joined Radio 2 in May 2023)
  9. Justin Webb £365,000-£369,999 (up from £320,000-£324,999)
  10. Naga Munchetty £355,000-£359,999 (up from £345,000-£349,999)
  11. Scott Mills £355,000-£359,999 (up from £315,000 – £319,999)

Last year, Vernon Kay made the list for the very first time after joining BBC Radio 2. The Bolton born presenter replaced Ken Bruce and took home a whopping £320,000 from the corporation in his first year. Despite this staggering sum, his take-home pay was almost 20 per cent less than what Ken earned in the previous year in the slot.

Meanwhile, disgraced BBC News host Huw Edwards also remained on the list last year, coming in at third place with a wage of £475,000-£479,999 (up from £435,000-£439,999). Edwards, who had been off-air since July 2023, left the BBC after being named as the presenter at the centre of days of allegations and speculation regarding his private life.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , X , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

READ MORE: M&S’ coffee and cake hampers are now under £5 in time for Christmas gifting



Source link

Trump sues BBC for defamation over Panorama speech edit

US President Donald Trump has filed a $5bn (£3.7bn) lawsuit against the BBC over an edit of his 6 January 2021 speech in a Panorama documentary.

Trump accused the broadcaster of defamation and of violating a trade practices law, according to court documents filed in Florida.

The BBC apologised to Trump last month, but rejected his demands for compensation and disagreed there was any “basis for a defamation claim”.

Trump’s legal team accused the BBC of defaming him by “intentionally, maliciously, and deceptively doctoring his speech”. The BBC has not yet responded to the lawsuit.

Trump said last month that he planned to sue the BBC for the documentary, which aired in the UK ahead of the 2024 US election.

“I think I have to do it,” Trump told reporters of his plans. “They cheated. They changed the words coming out of my mouth.”

In his speech on 6 January 2021, before a riot at the US Capitol, Trump told a crowd: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

More than 50 minutes later in the speech, he said: “And we fight. We fight like hell.”

In the Panorama programme, a clip showed him as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

The BBC acknowledged that the edit had given “the mistaken impression” he had “made a direct call for violent action”, but disagreed that there was basis for a defamation claim.

In November, a leaked internal BBC memo criticised how the speech was edited, and led to the resignations of the BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, and its head of news, Deborah Turness.

Before Trump filed the lawsuit, lawyers for the BBC had given a lengthy response to the president’s claims.

They said there was no malice in the edit and that Trump was not harmed by the programme, as he was re-elected shortly after it aired.

They also said the BBC did not have the rights to, and did not, distribute the Panorama programme on its US channels. While the documentary was available on BBC iPlayer, it was restricted to viewers in the UK.

In his lawsuit, Trump cites agreements the BBC had with other distributors to show content, specifically one with a third-party media corporation that allegedly had licensing rights to the documentary outside the UK. The BBC has not yet responded to these claims, nor has the company with the alleged distribution agreement.

The suit also claims that people in Florida may have accessed the programme using a VPN or by using streaming service BritBox.

“The Panorama Documentary’s publicity, coupled with significant increases in VPN usage in Florida since its debut, establishes the immense likelihood that citizens of Florida accessed the Documentary before the BBC had it removed,” the lawsuit said.

Source link

Trump sues BBC for $10bn over edited 2021 US Capitol riot speech | Donald Trump News

Lawyers for US President Donald Trump say the BBC caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

United States President Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit seeking at least $10bn from the BBC over a documentary that edited his speech to supporters before the US Capitol riot in 2021.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Miami on Monday, seeks “damages in an amount not less than $5,000,000,000” for each of two counts against the United Kingdom broadcaster for alleged defamation and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Earlier in the day, Trump confirmed his plans to file the lawsuit.

“I’m suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth, literally… I guess they used AI or something,” he told reporters at the White House.

“That’s called fake news .”

Trump has accused the UK publicly-owned broadcaster of defaming him by splicing together parts of a January 6, 2021, speech, including one section where he told supporters to march on the Capitol, and another where he said, “Fight like hell”.

The edited sections of his speech omitted words in which Trump also called for peaceful protest.

Trump’s lawsuit alleges that the BBC defamed him, and his lawyers say the documentary caused him overwhelming reputational and financial harm.

The BBC has already apologised to Trump, admitted an error of judgement and acknowledged that the edit gave the mistaken impression that he had made a direct call for violent action.

The broadcaster also said that there was no legal basis for the lawsuit, and that to overcome the US Constitution’s strong legal protections for free speech and the press, Trump will need to prove in court not only that the edit was false and defamatory, but also that the BBC knowingly misled viewers or acted recklessly.

The broadcaster could argue that the documentary was substantially true and its editing decisions did not create a false impression, legal experts said. It could also claim the programme did not damage Trump’s reputation.

Rioters gather with Trump signs before the steps of the US Capitol. Smoke or tear gas can be seen rising from the crowd.
Rioters attack the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021, in an attempt to disrupt the certification of Electoral College votes and the election victory of President Joe Biden [File: John Minchillo/AP Photo]

Trump, in his lawsuit, said that the BBC, despite its apology, “has made no showing of actual remorse for its wrongdoing nor meaningful institutional changes to prevent future journalistic abuses”.

A spokesman for Trump’s legal team said in a statement that the BBC had “a long pattern of deceiving its audience in coverage of President Trump, all in service of its own leftist political agenda”.

The BBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment after the lawsuit was filed on Monday.

The dispute over the edited speech, featured on the BBC’s Panorama documentary show shortly before the 2024 presidential election, prompted a public relations crisis for the broadcaster, leading to the resignations of its two most senior officials.

Other media organisations have settled with Trump, including CBS and ABC, when Trump sued them following his comeback win in the November 2024 election.

Trump has also filed lawsuits against The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a newspaper in Iowa, all of which have denied wrongdoing.



Source link

Justice Department sues four more states for access to detailed voter data

The U.S. Justice Department is suing four more states as part of its effort to collect detailed voting data and other election information across the country.

The department filed federal lawsuits against Colorado, Hawaii, Massachusetts and Nevada on Thursday, accusing them of “failing to produce statewide voter registration lists upon request.” So far, 18 states have been sued, including California, along with Fulton County in Georgia, which was sued over records related to the 2020 election, which President Trump continues to falsely claim he won.

The Trump administration has characterized the lawsuits as part of an effort to ensure the security of elections, and the Justice Department says the states are violating federal law by refusing to provide the voter lists and information about ineligible voters.

The lawsuits have raised concerns among some Democratic officials and voting rights advocates who question exactly how the data will be used, and whether the department will follow privacy laws to protect the information. Some of the data sought include names, dates of birth, residential addresses, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

“States have the statutory duty to preserve and protect their constituents from vote dilution,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a press release. “At this Department of Justice, we will not permit states to jeopardize the integrity and effectiveness of elections by refusing to abide by our federal elections laws. If states will not fulfill their duty to protect the integrity of the ballot, we will.”

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat, said her office declined to provide unredacted voter data.

“We will not hand over Coloradans’ sensitive voting information to Donald Trump. He does not have a legal right to the information,” Griswold said Thursday after the lawsuit was filed. “I will continue to protect our elections and democracy, and look forward to winning this case.”

Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, also a Democrat, said the Justice Department hasn’t provided clear answers about how the data will be used, and he has a duty to follow state law and protect voters’ sensitive information and access to the ballot.

“While these requests may seem like normal oversight, the federal government is using its power to try to intimidate states and influence how states administer elections ahead of the 2026 cycle,” Aguilar said in a news release. “The Constitution makes it clear: elections are run by the states.”

In a Sept. 22 letter to the Justice Department, Hawaii Deputy Solicitor Gen. Thomas Hughes said state law requires that all personal information required on a voter registration district other than a voter’s full name, voting district or precinct and voter status must be kept confidential. Hughes also said the federal law cited by the Justice Department doesn’t require states to turn over electronic registration lists, nor does it require states to turn over “uniquely or highly sensitive personal information” about voters.

An Associated Press tally found that the Justice Department has asked at least 26 states for voter registration rolls in recent months, and in many cases asked states for information on how they maintain their voter rolls. In addition to California, other states being sued by the Justice Department include Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Nearly all the states are Democrat-led, and several are crucial swing states.

The bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission voted 5 to 1 on Thursday against turning over unredacted voter information to the Trump administration. The lone dissenter was Republican commissioner Robert Spindell, who warned that rejecting the request would invite a lawsuit. But other commissioners said it would be illegal under Wisconsin law to provide the voter roll information, which includes the full names, dates of birth, residential addresses and driver’s license numbers of voters.

Boone writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Scott Bauer in Madison, Wis., contributed to this report.

Source link

Russian Central Bank sues Belgian bank over frozen funds

Ukrainians hold signs during a protest demanding the use of frozen Russian assets on the sidelines of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council meeting in Brussels on Friday. Belgium has been blocking an EU plan to approve a large “reparations loan” for Ukraine backed by frozen Russian state assets because it fears major legal and financial risks. Russia has filed a lawsuit as a warning. Photo by Olivier Hoslet/EPA

Dec. 12 (UPI) — Russia’s Central Bank has filed suit against the Belgian bank that holds about $217 billion in frozen Russian state assets to stop the European Union from using that money to make a large loan to Ukraine.

Most of Moscow’s frozen cash is held in Belgian bank depository Euroclear. The EU wants to extend a loan to Ukraine, which is running out of money to fight the Russian invasion of the country. But Russia wants to block that loan and accuses the EU of theft.

The Central Bank filed the suit in the Moscow City Arbitration Court as a warning to the EU. It said in a statement that Euroclear was participating in “unlawful activities” and that it filed the suit because the EU’s executive was “considering proposals for direct or indirect use of Bank of Russia assets without authorization.”

“A Moscow court cannot force Euroclear to comply, and any ruling would be unenforceable abroad,” said Alexandra Prokopenko, a former Russian Central Bank official and a fellow at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, told The New York Times.

“But it is not meaningless: It creates formal documentation of Russia’s legal claims and serves as a political signal ahead of international litigation.”

Prokopenko also said an investment protection agreement exists between Russia, Belgium and Luxembourg that requires any loss to be compensated. That means Moscow could use that in future international arbitration against Belgium. So Belgium is worried about being left responsible in the future.

EU leaders will discuss the potential loan at a meeting Thursday in Brussels of leaders of all 27 member states. Belgium’s Prime Minister Bart de Wever was in London to meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Friday. The frozen assets were on the agenda, British officials have said.

European countries have been pushing Belgium to agree to the plan, but it’s trying to convince other countries to share the risk. Although most of Russia’s cash is at Euroclear, but smaller amounts are held in other European countries.

The loan plan would use the frozen assets to back a $106 billion loan to Ukraine, meted out over the next two years. Ukraine would only have to pay it back if Russia pays reparations.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said about the funds, “It’s only fair that Russia’s frozen assets should be used to rebuild what Russia has destroyed — and that money then becomes ours.”

The loan plan could also cause a clash with Washington. In the U.S.-created peace plan that is still being negotiated, that frozen money was to be used to help rebuild Ukraine. But EU officials argue that if Ukraine falters financially, it will be in a weakened position in peace negotiations.

Using the frozen funds could “destabilize the international financial system,” Euroclear chief executive Valérie Urbain said.

“Belgium is a small economy,” Veerle Colaert, professor of financial law at KU Leuven University, told the BBC. “Belgian GDP is about [$661.5 billion] — imagine if it would need to shoulder a [$216.5 billion] bill.” She also said the loan may violate EU banking rules.

“Banks need to comply with capital and liquidity requirements and shouldn’t put all their eggs in one basket. Now the EU is telling Euroclear to do just that,” Colaert said.

“Why do we have these bank rules? It’s because we want banks to be stable. And if things go wrong it would fall to Belgium to bail out Euroclear. That’s another reason why it’s so important for Belgium to secure water-tight guarantees for Euroclear.”

Source link

California sues Trump administration over $100,000 fee for H-1B visas

California and a coalition of other states are suing the Trump administration over a policy charging employers $100,000 for each new H-1B visa they request for foreign employees to work in the U.S. — calling it a threat not only to major industry but also to public education and healthcare services.

“As the world’s fourth largest economy, California knows that when skilled talent from around the world joins our workforce, it drives our state forward,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who announced the litigation Friday.

President Trump imposed the fee through a Sept. 19 proclamation, in which he said the H-1B visa program — designed to provide U.S. employers with skilled workers in science, technology, engineering, math and other advanced fields — has been “deliberately exploited to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.”

Trump said the program also created a “national security threat by discouraging Americans from pursuing careers in science and technology, risking American leadership in these fields.”

Bonta said such claims are baseless, and that the imposition of such fees is unlawful because it runs counter to the intent of Congress in creating the program and exceeds the president’s authority. He said Congress has included significant safeguards to prevent abuses, and that the new fee structure undermines the program’s purpose.

“President Trump’s illegal $100,000 H-1B visa fee creates unnecessary — and illegal — financial burdens on California public employers and other providers of vital services, exacerbating labor shortages in key sectors,” Bonta said in a statement. “The Trump Administration thinks it can raise costs on a whim, but the law says otherwise.”

Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, said Friday that the fee was “a necessary, initial, incremental step towards necessary reforms” that were lawful and in line with the president’s promise to “put American workers first.”

Attorneys for the administration previously defended the fee in response to a separate lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Assn. of American Universities, arguing earlier this month that the president has “extraordinarily broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens whenever he finds their admission ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States,’” or to adopt “reasonable rules, regulations, and orders” related to their entry.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that this authority is ‘sweeping,’ subject only to the requirement that the President identify a class of aliens and articulate a facially legitimate reason for their exclusion,” the administration’s attorneys wrote.

They alleged that the H-1B program has been “ruthlessly and shamelessly exploited by bad actors,” and wrote that the plaintiffs were asking the court “to disregard the President’s inherent authority to restrict the entry of aliens into the country and override his judgment,” which they said it cannot legally do.

Trump’s announcement of the new fee alarmed many existing visa holders and badly rattled industries that are heavily reliant on such visas, including tech companies trying to compete for the world’s best talent in the global race to ramp up their AI capabilities. Thousands of companies in California have applied for H-1B visas this year, and tens of thousands have been granted to them.

Trump’s adoption of the fees is seen as part of his much broader effort to restrict immigration into the U.S. in nearly all its forms. However, he is far from alone in criticizing the H-1B program as a problematic pipeline.

Critics of the program have for years documented examples of employers using it to replace American workers with cheaper foreign workers, as Trump has suggested, and questioned whether the country truly has a shortage of certain types of workers — including tech workers.

There have also been allegations of employers, who control the visas, abusing workers and using the threat of deportation to deter complaints — among the reasons some on the political left have also been critical of the program.

“Not only is this program disastrous for American workers, it can be very harmful to guest workers as well, who are often locked into lower-paying jobs and can have their visas taken away from them by their corporate bosses if they complain about dangerous, unfair or illegal working conditions,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a Fox News opinion column in January.

In the Chamber of Commerce case, attorneys for the administration wrote that companies in the U.S. “have at times laid off thousands of American workers while simultaneously hiring thousands of H-1B workers,” sometimes even forcing the American workers “to train their H-1B replacements” before they leave.

They have done so, the attorneys wrote, even as unemployment among recent U.S. college graduates in STEM fields has increased.

“Employing H-1B workers in entry-level positions at discounted rates undercuts American worker wages and opportunities, and is antithetical to the purpose of the H-1B program, which is ‘to fill jobs for which highly skilled and educated American workers are unavailable,’” the administration’s attorneys wrote.

By contrast, the states’ lawsuit stresses the shortfalls in the American workforce in key industries, and defends the program by citing its existing limits. The legal action notes that employers must certify to the government that their hiring of visa workers will not negatively affect American wages or working conditions. Congress also has set a cap on the number of visa holders that any individual employer may hire.

Bonta’s office said educators account for the third-largest occupation group in the program, with nearly 30,000 educators with H-1B visas helping thousands of institutions fill a national teacher shortage that saw nearly three-quarters of U.S. school districts report difficulty filling positions in the 2024-2025 school year.

Schools, universities and colleges — largely public or nonprofit — cannot afford to pay $100,000 per visa, Bonta’s office said.

In addition, some 17,000 healthcare workers with H-1B visas — half of them physicians and surgeons — are helping to backfill a massive shortfall in trained medical staff in the U.S., including by working as doctors and nurses in low-income and rural neighborhoods, Bonta’s office said.

“In California, access to specialists and primary care providers in rural areas is already extremely limited and is projected to worsen as physicians retire and these communities struggle to attract new doctors,” it said. “As a result of the fee, these institutions will be forced to operate with inadequate staffing or divert funding away from other important programs to cover expenses.”

Bonta’s office said that prior to the imposition of the new fee, employers could expect to pay between $960 and $7,595 in “regulatory and statutory fees” per H-1B visa, based on the actual cost to the government of processing the request and document, as intended by Congress.

The Trump administration, Bonta’s office said, issued the new fee without going through legally required processes for collecting outside input first, and “without considering the full range of impacts — especially on the provision of the critical services by government and nonprofit entities.”

The arguments echo findings by a judge in a separate case years ago, after Trump tried to restrict many such visas in his first term. A judge in that case — brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Assn. of Manufacturers and others — found that Congress, not the president, had the authority to change the terms of the visas, and that the Trump administration had not evaluated the potential impacts of such a change before implementing it, as required by law.

The case became moot after President Biden decided not to renew the restrictions in 2021, a move which tech companies considered a win.

Joining in the lawsuit — California’s 49th against the Trump administration in the last year alone — are Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Source link

DOJ sues Minneapolis schools over ‘DEI’ employment policies

Dec. 11 (UPI) — The Justice Department is suing the Minneapolis Public School District, alleging its provision to hire more teachers of color is a civil rights violation amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday but announced Wednesday, accuses the district of discriminating against teachers based on their race, color, sex and national origin.

“Discrimination is unacceptable in all forms, especially when it comes to hiring decisions,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

“Our public education system in Minnesota and across the country must be a bastion of merit and equal opportunity — not DEI.”

Diversity, equity and inclusion, known as DEI, is a conceptual framework that promotes fair treatment and full participation of all people. It has for years been a target of Republican lawmakers and conservative activists, who claim DEI policies amount to unlawful racial preferences or discrimination against White individuals.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has led a campaign to erase DEI from the federal government, as well as private and public institutions, bringing a number of lawsuits against state and local governments, as well as schools and universities.

The lawsuit announced Wednesday focuses on the collective bargaining agreement the district signed with a teachers union that provides underrepresented teachers preferential treatment in employment decisions.

According to the lawsuit, the agreement requires the district when reassigning teachers, to do so based on seniority unless a teacher is from an underrepresented community. The agreement also directs the district to prioritize reinstatement of teachers from underrepresented communities.

In times of layoffs, teachers from underrepresented communities are allowed to be exempt, the Justice Department argues in the lawsuit.

“While defendants claim that these provisions are to stop discrimination, they require defendants to blatantly discriminate against teachers based on their race, color, sex and national origin,” the Trump administration said in the lawsuit,

“The United States brings this action to stop Defendants from engaging in race- and sex-based discrimination and thereby violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Source link

HBO Max subscriber sues Netflix to halt merger

Let the legal battle begin.

On Monday, a Las Vegas-based HBO Max subscriber sued Netflix over concerns that the streamer’s plans to buy some of Warner Bros. Discovery’s assets would create an anti-competitive environment in the entertainment industry and raise subscription prices.

Netflix said last week it agreed to buy Warner Bros. Discovery’s film and TV business, its Burbank lot, HBO and the HBO Max streaming service for $27.75 a share or $72 billion. It also agreed to take on more than $10 billion of Warner Bros.’ debt, creating a deal value of $82.7 billion.

Michelle Fendelander alleges in her lawsuit that if Netflix’s deal were to go through, it would decrease competition in the subscription streaming market. She is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent the merger from happening or issue a remedy for the anti-competitive effects.

“American consumers — including SVOD purchasers like Plaintiff, an HBO Max subscriber — will bear the brunt of this decreased competition, paying increased prices and receiving degraded and diminished services for their money,” according to Fendelander’s lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status. The lawsuit was filed in a U.S. District Court in San Jose.

Netflix on Tuesday called the lawsuit “meritless” and “merely an attempt by the plaintiffs bar to leverage all the attention on the deal.”

The Los Gatos, Calif.,-based streamer is long seen as the winner of the subscription streaming wars, boosted by having successfully entered the streaming content space earlier than rivals and for its superior recommendation technology. By buying Warner Bros. Discovery’s assets, Netflix would gain access to more franchises and characters, including Batman, “Game of Thrones” and Harry Potter. Netflix said it plans to keep Warner Bros.’ commitments to bringing its movies to theaters.

But Fendelander and some industry observers are concerned that Netflix owning one of its streaming rivals will hurt the entertainment industry because it means less competition.

“The elimination of this rivalry is likely to reduce overall content output, diminish the diversity and quality of available content, and narrow the spectrum of creative voices appearing on major streaming platforms,” according to the lawsuit by Fendelander, who has never been a Netflix subscriber.

Streamers over the years have steadily raised their prices, and some analysts said they would not be surprised if subscription prices continued to go up.

Netflix executives said they believe their deal to acquire WBD’s assets will benefit key stakeholders.

“It’s going to mean more options for consumers,” said Netflix Co-CEO Greg Peters on a call with investors last Friday. “It’s going to be more opportunities for creators, more value for our shareholders. Together, we’ve got the chance to bring great stories, cutting edge innovation and more choice to audiences everywhere.”

Peters also pointed out at a UBS conference on Monday that Netflix combined with the assets it is acquiring from Warner Bros. Discovery would still amount to a smaller share of U.S. TV viewing than YouTube.

Whether the deal will get over the finish line remains to be seen, although Netflix executives say they believe it will. On Monday, Paramount said it would directly appeal to shareholders to offer an alternative bid.

Source link