Teacher FIRED for Criticizing Rioters!

[INSIDE JW]

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION REDACTS FAUCI AND WHO EMAILS ON COVID-19

[[link removed]]

Why does the federal government not want the public to know what Dr.
Anthony Fauci or the World Health Organization were communicating
about COVID-19?

In May 2020 we sued the Department of Health and Human Services on
behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) for emails about
COVID-19, China, and WHO.

The last response of 311 pages
[[link removed]]
of records includes heavily redacted communications from Dr. Fauci and
WHO regarding COVID-19.

Certain Fauci emails were redacted, including his personal edits to a
COVID-related federal appropriations measure. Emails sent from the WHO
were also redacted under a trade secrets exemption.

In a letter with the documents, HHS Freedom of Information Act Officer
Gorka Garcia-Malene notes that:

[Freedom of Information Act] Exemption 4 protects from disclosure
trade secrets and commercial or financial information that is
privileged and confidential. Exemption 5 [under which the Fauci email
is redacted] permits the withholding of internal government records
which are predecisional and contain staff advice, opinion, and
recommendations.
We received the records in response to our May 2020 FOIA lawsuit
[[link removed]]
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on
behalf of the DCNF (_Daily Caller News Foundation v. U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services_
[[link removed]]
(No.
1:20-cv-01149)). The lawsuit was filed after HHS failed to respond to
the DCNF’s April 1, 2020, FOIA request asking for:

Communications between Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane and World
Health Organization officials concerning the novel coronavirus.

Communications of Dr. Fauci and Deputy Director Lane concerning WHO,
WHO official Bruce Aylward, WHO Director General Tedros Anhanom, and
China.
“The American people have every right to know key information on our
government’s role in COVID,” said Neil Patel, Daily Caller News
Foundation publisher. “This sort of hiding, dodging and stonewalling
is one reason why trust in national authorities is near all-time
lows.”

Fauci’s agency is in stonewall mode – and has granted the
corrupted WHO a special secrecy exemption from FOIA. In my experience,
government secrecy is rarely invoked for good faith reasons – which
means that Fauci and his agency should be examined closely.

JUDICIAL WATCH DEFENDS TEACHER FIRED FOR FACEBOOK POSTS CRITICIZING
VIOLENCE AFTER GEORGE FLOYD’S DEATH

The Left has directly or indirectly seized control of many local
governing bodies, particularly school boards and school districts, and
it’s using this authority to stifle the First Amendment.

We filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of Palatine,
Illinois, tenured high school teacher Jeanne Hedgepeth, who was fired
by the suburban-Chicago school district where she had worked for 20
years after posting comments on Facebook criticizing the riots,
violence, and shootings in Chicago in the aftermath of the May 25,
2020, killing of George Floyd.

Hedgepeth made the posts on her personal Facebook page while
vacationing after the end of the school year, just as some of the most
severe violence was occurring. In her posts, Hedgepeth recommended
studying Thomas Sowell, whom she described as a “treasure” and a
“truth seeker,” and praised political commentator and activist
Candice Owens and talk show host Larry Elder. She alleges that the
firing violated her First Amendment rights.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, seeks damages from the school district, Township
High School District 211, and district board members and officials who
participated directly in the firing (_Hedgepeth v. Britton et al._
[[link removed]]
(Case No. 1:21-cv-03890)). We are being assisted by attorney Christine
Svenson of Palatine, Illinois.

The lawsuit explains:

In late May and early June 2020, Hedgepeth was vacationing in Florida
after the end of the 2019-20 school year when violent street protests,
rioting, looting, and shootings erupted in Chicago and many other U.S.
cities in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020
by Minneapolis police officers. In Chicago alone, 82 persons were
shot, 19 fatally, over the May 30-31, 2020 weekend. On May 31, 2020,
which the Chicago Sun Times described as the most violent day Chicago
had seen in 60 years, Mayor Lori Lightfoot asked Governor J.B.
Pritzker to deploy the Illinois National Guard in the city.

That same day, May 31, 2020, Hedgepeth posted the following photos of
herself on the beach in Florida along with the comment, “I don’t
want to go home tomorrow. Now that the civil war has begun I want to
move.”

An individual responded, “Follow your gut! Move!!!!!!!!!”
Hedgepeth answered, “I need a gun and training.” The individual
replied, “me too!”

Another individual posted a meme that same day suggesting that the
riots could be stopped with a septic tank truck and a pressure cannon.
Hedgepeth reposted the meme, obviously in jest, adding, “You think
this would work?”

On or about June 1, 2020, Hedgepeth posted the following comment on
Facebook in the course of an exchange of posts begun the previous day
with a third individual:
I am about facts, truth seeking and love. I will speak on any topic I
choose because I live in a free country. I find the term “white
privilege” as racist as the “N” word. You have not walked in my
shoes either so do not make assumptions about me and my so called
privilege. You think America is racist? Then you have been hoodwinked
by the white liberal establishment and race baiters like Jesse Jackson
and Al Sharpton. Travel the world and go see that every nation has
racism and some more than others but few make efforts such as we do to
mitigate or eliminate it. I have lived and seen. The people I am
informed by about the black experience in America are actually some of
the smartest people in America. And it so happens they are black. I
highly recommend studying Thomas Sowell, who is now retired and in his
80’s. A treasure. A truth seeker. [D]oes REAL research and analysis.
Candice Owens is one of the smartest and most courageous women in
America and Larry Elders speaks the truth with a great sense of humor
and FACTS not feelings. They are who I listen to when it comes to
facts about the black experience in America. Don’t you think there
is a deeper problem than racism when 50% of murders in America are
committed by 13% of the population? Do you think there might be a
subtle genocide of black babies when most planned parenthoods are put
in poor neighborhoods and that 30% of abortions are black babies.
[B]lack women only make up 7% of the U.S. population. The greatest
power you have is what you believe about yourself. [W]hat have
Democrats, mainstream media and intellectuals in ivory towers been
telling the black community to believe about themselves for forty
years? Wake up and stop believing them, then things will change.

All of Hedgepeth’s posts were on her personal Facebook page. None of
Hedgepeth’s posts identified her as a teacher or a District 211
employee, nor did Hedgepeth post them in her capacity as a teacher or
a District 211 employee. None of the persons with whom Hedgepeth
exchanged Facebook posts were current District 211 or Palatine High
School teachers, staff, or students.
Upon returning from her vacation in early June 2020, Hedgepeth learned
that the school district was investigating her for her Facebook posts.
She was fired by the school board six weeks later, on July 16, 2020,
by a vote of 5-2. In her defense, Hedgepeth noted that the posts were
on her personal Facebook page and were made “out of school.” She
also expressly invoked her First Amendment rights.

The school district took what could have been a teachable moment about
respecting diversity of viewpoints and turned it into a clear civil
rights violation. Jeanne Hedgepeth had every right to express herself
freely and openly on her personal Facebook page, outside of school,
about matters of undeniable public concern.

Firing her for opposing lawlessness, speaking out about gun rights,
praising black conservatives, and criticizing Democrats and tenets of
Critical Racial Theory violated the First Amendment, and the school
district and district officials who did so will be held accountable.

Ms. Hedgepeth noted on Fox News
[[link removed]]
this week that she couldn’t find a lawyer to help her until Judicial
Watch came along. You can see how your support
[[link removed]]
of
Judicial Watch not only helps us keep watch and expose government
corruption here in DC but helps protect the civil rights of everyday
American citizens!

JUDICIAL WATCH TO COURT: GENDER QUOTA FOR CORPORATE BOARDS VIOLATES
CALIFORNIA’S CONSTITUTION

The leftists controlling California legislature has gone quota crazy,
wrapping themselves into an unconstitutional, discriminatory pretzel.

You can see this directly in our motion for summary judgment asking a
California court to rule that the State’s quota for women on
corporate boards is unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin any
expenditure of taxpayer funds on the quota. The filings come in the
case _Robin Crest et al. v. Alex Padilla_
[[link removed]]
(No.19STCV27561)).

We filed the lawsuit
[[link removed]]
in Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 6, 2019, on behalf of
three California taxpayers. The 2018 law, known as Senate Bill 826,
requires every publicly held corporation headquartered in California
to have at least one director “who self-identifies her gender as a
woman” on its board of directors by December 31, 2019. The law
requires corporations have up to three such persons on their boards by
December 31, 2021, depending on the size of the board. The taxpayers
challenging the provision claim that the quota violates the Equal
Protection clause of the California Constitution.

In July 2020, the court cleared the way for the case to proceed,
holding
[[link removed]]
that our clients had standing under state law to sue.

We argue:

There can be no doubt that SB 826 employs a suspect classification –
gender – to differentiate between similarly situated persons –
current and prospective members of corporate boards. The Legislature
has decided that there are not enough women on corporate boards for
its liking, so it has enacted SB 826, which requires that corporations
have a minimum number of women on their boards. SB 826 treats current
and prospective board members not as individuals, but as members of
two groups based on their gender. Women may compete for every position
on a corporation’s board, yet men are excluded from competing for
those positions reserved for women. No matter how strong a male
candidate’s qualifications might be, he is never afforded the
opportunity to compete with female candidates for every board position
available, but instead must compete only for those board positions for
which there is no gender preference. In this regard, SB 826 creates
the same type of quota system for seats on corporate boards that was
found to be unconstitutional for seats in the medical school class at
issue in _Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke_ (1978) 438 U.S. 265,
319-20 (“Bakke”).
Countering the State’s claim that the quota is necessary to “boost
the California economy,” “improve opportunities for women in the
workplace,” and “protect California taxpayers, shareholders, and
retirees,” we argue:

The requirement of necessity is also absent. Does California really
need to impose a gender-based quota on corporate boards to improve its
economy? To improve opportunities for women in the workplace? To
protect taxpayers, shareholders, and retirees or improve corporate
sustainability or preserve public confidence? Are the tools available
to the Legislature really so weak or so limited that it must resort to
gender discrimination to achieve these goals? To state such a claim
is to refute it. Nothing in SB 826’s legislative findings or
legislative history demonstrate that the Legislature had to resort to
a gender-based quota system out of necessity to achieve its goals.
We also argue:

Diversity for diversity’s sake is never constitutional.
“‘Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than
race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the
Constitution forbids.’” (Connerly, 92 Cal. App. 4th at 34 (quoting
Bakke, 438 U.S. at 307.)) ….

Defendant’s “diversity for diversity’s sake” argument will not
save SB 826’s blatantly unconstitutional quota. And of course,
asserting that more women on corporate boards will add diversity
merely perpetuates gender-based stereotypes about both men and women.
We also demonstrated that the State could provide no evidence of
specific, past discrimination by the corporations subject to the law
in selecting board members:

The Legislature made no effort to identify specific past or present
victims of alleged discrimination or to identify specific perpetrators
of such discrimination. No specific victims or perpetrators were
identified in SB 826’s legislative findings, and Defendant was
unable to identify any such victims or perpetrators in response to
interrogatories seeking this specific information…. In response to
an interrogatory asking Defendant to identify specific victims of
discrimination, Defendant responded generically, identifying
“women,” “corporations,” “California taxpayers and
retirees,” and “shareholders and investors” as well as “the
economy.” … Because SB 826 is not actually remedial and does not
restore victims of alleged discrimination to the position they would
have occupied absent the discrimination, and because no effort has
been made to limit SB 826’s “remedy” to such victims, SB 826
cannot withstand strict scrutiny. Indeed, the blunt instrument of a
quota is unlikely to ever satisfy this standard.
In signing SB 826 in September 2018, then-Governor Brown wrote
[[link removed]]
that
“serious legal concerns have been raised” to the legislation. “I
don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to
its ultimate implementation.” He signed the bill anyway, noting,
“Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. – and beyond –
make it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.”

There are currently 625 publicly traded corporations headquartered in
California that are subject to the quota. In a March 2020 report
[[link removed]],
California’s Secretary of State identified 282 corporations that
reported compliance with the quota.

Not a single dime of California’s taxpayer’s money should be going
to support a law that requires sex discrimination. The ‘Women on
Corporate Boards’ statute is not only unconstitutional, but morally
wrong. Our California taxpayer clients are asking the courts to
uphold California’s Constitution which prohibits sex discrimination.

In September 2020, we also filed a related taxpayer lawsuit
[[link removed]]
to
prevent California from enforcing Assembly Bill 979, which requires
the same corporation subject to the gender-based quota also satisfy
racial, ethnic, sexual preference and transgender status quotas by the
end of the 2021 calendar year

In January 2021, we filed a public comment
[[link removed]]
with the Securities and Exchange Commission in response to a proposed
rule change requiring race and gender quotas on the boards of
corporations listed on the Nasdaq exchange.

Until next week...





[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2021, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]