Tag Archives: United States Supreme Court

In the Newsroom with Gov.Inslee ~ Nov. ~


JayInslee11/24/2014 – Gov. Inslee asks Washington shoppers to support Small Business Saturday, shop local on Nov. 29

the other Washington … in news November 2014


PDF of today's Seattle Times front page

Fishermen’s wives sue to keep Oregon rescue station open

Sockeye salmon in the upper Columbia

Start early or late to reach holiday destination

Rep. Kagi predicts ‘grueling, contentious’ 2015 state legislative session | Lynnwood Today

Hollywood producers snubbing Seattle; here’s why

 

We’re no better than Ferguson; maybe worse


Seattle Times staff columnist

Mayor Ed Murray says “Seattle is not Ferguson.” In countless ways I’m sure he’s right, except for this very important one: It’s just as unlikely for cops to get charged for bad deeds here as it is in supposedly backward Missouri.

In fact we’re arguably worse than Ferguson.

No offense to the thousands of protesters marching on behalf of Michael Brown. But what has stood out to me is how the Ferguson case isn’t nearly as flagrant as recent police-brutality cases here in progressive Puget Sound.

In Ferguson, the police officer, Darren Wilson, had a good case to make that he was under some level of assault. If it’s true that Brown slugged the officer through the squad-car door and tried to wrestle away his gun — as the officer and some witnesses attest — then getting even a low-level manslaughter charge to stick against the officer would be next to impossible.

The Ferguson case is supercharged by that region’s racial history. But still — compare the facts of it to what happened in Seattle to John T. Williams in 2010. Ferguson isn’t on the same radar screen of outrageousness.

Unlike Brown, Williams didn’t assault anyone or do anything hostile, beyond toting his carving knife with a wood block and maybe looking menacingly in a police officer’s direction. The officer, Ian Birk, told him to drop the knife. When Williams didn’t — perhaps because he couldn’t hear — Birk shot five times and killed him.

Even the police department called that “egregious.” Yet no charges were filed. Our outgoing U.S. attorney, Jenny Durkan, this week compared that case to Ferguson in an article she wrote for The Washington Post, headlined: “As a federal prosecutor I know how hard it is to charge officers like Darren Wilson.”

An officer has to have malice or willfully bad intent to be convicted, she wrote. It’s an incredibly high bar. “Accident, mistake, fear, negligence or bad judgment is not sufficient,” Durkan wrote when declining to charge Birk.

You can see why the chances of Darren Wilson getting convicted by the state or the feds in Ferguson would be near zero.

We’ve had other baffling cases, such as Christopher Harris, a completely innocent man who mistakenly ran from police in Belltown in 2009 and then was shoved into a wall so hard it paralyzed him for life. The officer who did that not only wasn’t charged, but remained on the force.

But one case here was so extreme that prosecutors took the rare step of charging the officer. Troy Meade, of the Everett police, had shot an aggressive drunken driver, Niles Meservey, seven times from behind, killing him. The officer’s conduct was so questionable that a fellow officer did something unheard of: He crossed the blue line to testify against his mate, claiming the force Meade used was both excessive and vindictive.

Yet Meade was acquitted of second-degree murder by a jury in 2011. The officer argued the car was about to back up and hit him, and because the law puts such a premium on this state of mind defense, he walked.

My point isn’t to bash our local cops. These were isolated cases and don’t reflect on other officers.

But the narrative that’s developed out of Ferguson is that the officer there wasn’t charged because the system is inherently racist. Parts of it may be, but more so it’s just incredibly pro-cop. It lets them walk pretty much no matter what.

Durkan writes it’s this way for a legitimate reason: “We want police to be able to make split second decisions necessary to protect us.” That is crucial.

But in the Williams shooting in particular, it tilted too far. If there was nothing wrong legally with what happened to him, then it’s hard to imagine anything with the police ever being legally wrong.

Ferguson is bringing up an important debate about racial inequality.

But the case is too murky to support a national movement on police accountability.

We’ve had much starker ones right here. Seattle may be more Ferguson than Ferguson.

Danny Westneat’s column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com

Pregnant and pink-slipp​ed?


NWLCHands-Circle-180Emily J. Martin, National Women’s Law CenterWe get calls all the time.

 
Calls from pregnant workers whose employers have given them an impossible choice: They can either lose their jobs or endanger their pregnancies.
Why is this still happening? Well, when it comes to pregnant workers, employers and courts are misunderstanding the law.
Enough is enough. Tell the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to issue strong and clear guidance on reasonable job accommodations for the pregnant workers who need them.
Without clear guidance, pregnant workers who need a temporary change on the job are often treated worse than employees with similar limitations arising out of disability or injury. For example, many workplaces give a worker with a back injury a temporary reprieve from having to lift heavy objects — but if a pregnant worker asks for the same accommodation, she could be fired.
The consequences for pregnant workers can be devastating. Here are just three examples of women featured in a new report issued today by NWLC and A Better Balance:

  • A pregnant fast-food worker in Washington, D.C., was fired after her employer refused to let her drink water on the job.
  • A pregnant cashier at a Dollar Tree store wasn’t allowed to sit on a stool, even though workers in other Dollar Tree stores did. Instead, she was required to stand for 8 to 10 hours at a stretch — which landed her in the emergency room.
  • When a pregnant truck driver in Maryland asked for help with occasional heavy lifting, she was forced onto unpaid leave — and she lost her health insurance.

These stories didn’t have to have a bad ending. These women just needed temporary adjustments to their jobs to continue working — the same sorts of adjustments their employers routinely provided to co-workers with disabilities or injuries.
Pregnant workers can’t wait. It’s time for the EEOC to issue strong and clear guidance on employers’ legal obligation to accommodate pregnant workers.
Send your message now.
Thanks again for all of your support.
Sincerely,

Emily J. Martin Emily J. Martin Vice President and General Counsel National Women’s Law Center    

P.S. Want to read more? Check out NWLC and A Better Balance’s new report featuring personal accounts of women who lost their jobs, health insurance and more — and women who had no choice but to keep working and risk their health.

No More Waiting


By

President Obama Is Moving Forward On Executive Action That Could Halt 5 Million Deportations

President Obama will disregard Republican complaints and sign an executive action that could shield up to five million immigrants from deportation, the New York Times reports. The official announcement would “significantly refocus the activities of the government’s 12,000 immigration agents,” and could be made as early as next week.

The first piece of the order, according to White House officials, will be to protect the parents of children who are American citizens or legal residents from deportation by allowing them to obtain legal work permits. Depending on whether the order is limited to parents who have been undocumented and living in the United States for five years or for ten years, it could affect between 2.5 million and 3.3 million people. The President is reported to be considering a second piece to extend protections to immigrants who came here as children, and to their parents. This could affect up to one million or more additional undocumented immigrants.

The action will also clarify who should be high priority and low priority for deportation, in order to focus enforcement on violent criminals instead of breaking up families. Finally, it will also enhance border security and expand opportunities for immigrants with high-tech skills.

It’s not the comprehensive immigration reform that the Senate passed and the American people support, but it’s a very important step. And it upholds President Obama’s promise last week after the midterms that he won’t “just wait” for Republicans to stop stalling on the issue.

BOTTOM LINE: President Obama’s commitment to move forward with an executive action to halt deportations is an important step toward helping to fix our broken immigration system. But it does not remove the pressure from Congressional Republicans to do what the American people want and pass comprehensive immigration reform.