‘They think I’m different:’ Horrific video shows Syrian boy being choked on a school field
By Avi Selk, Washington Post
On a school field in northern England last month, a group of boys closed in fast upon their target.
“Hey, Jamal, come here!” a boy in a blue sweater yelled, as others strode beside him, one of them holding a phone aloft to record the pursuit.
A few yards ahead, Jamal kept walking, backpack strapped across his T-shirt and a cast around his arm. He had been injured a few days prior in another incident at Almondbury Community School, according to police. He and his sister had been repeatedly bullied since fleeing the Syrian civil war and moving to West Yorkshire two years earlier, according to British news outlets.
Jamal was 15 — a year younger than the boy in the sweater, who walked fast to close the distance and swung a water bottle in his hand.
“What’re you saying now then?” he called out to Jamal.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Does Title VII Protect Gay & Transgender Employees? The Supreme Court May Soon Decide
By Christopher Wilkinson, David Smith and Tierra Piens Orrick (Mondaq)
As early as November 30, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to hear three high profile employment cases that question whether Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination protects gay and transgender employees. These cases have significant implications on the proper scope of Title VII and the rights of the LGBT community in the workplace.
Under Title VII, an employer has engaged in “‘impermissible consideration of … sex … in employment practices’ when ‘sex … was a motivating factor for any employment practice,’ irrespective of whether the employer was also motivated by ‘other factors’.”
The text of Title VII provides, in relevant part:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge … or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his [or her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ….
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In the first of the three cases, Altitude Express v. Zarda, the estate of a deceased Missouri skydiving instructor claims that his former employer unlawfully terminated his employment based on his sexual orientation.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Can the courts fix bullying? This judge hopes so.
By Jay Rey, The Buffalo News
It’s not every day the public gets a peek inside the courtroom of Erie County Family Court Judge Brenda M. Freedman.
Freedman handles a variety of cases involving juveniles, so there’s limited access to the courtroom, to protect their privacy.
But what you might notice, like Freedman did, is that far too many cases coming before the bench have a recurring, underlying theme: bullying.
While it has long been an issue for the schools, and often left for them to handle, the bullying spilling over into the juvenile justice system is a reminder of the wider problem.
And it’s what led Freedman to spearhead an anti-bullying task force.