MO AG suing IBM for alleged discrimination against Asians, Whites, and Men

Missouri AG Andrew Bailey

Missouri's Attorney General, Andrew Bailey, has filed a lawsuit against the huge technology company, International Business Machines (IBM). He claims that IBM is unfair in how they hire people, preferring certain groups over white, Asian, and male applicants. Bailey says that IBM even forces workers to follow these rules by linking their pay to how well they meet diversity goals.

[H/T The Daily Wire]

Bailey told conservative outlet The Daily Wire that he wants this lawsuit to stop what he calls "corporate racism" at IBM. He says that the company's "diversity modifier" system unfairly connects executive pay to meeting targets that are biased against white, Asian, and male applicants.
“But if he or she fails to meet it, IBM swings the stick: they lose part of their bonus and, eventually, their job,” the lawsuit says.

“We will not tolerate racist employment policies in the state of Missouri. That’s the plain text of the Missouri Human Rights Act,” Bailey explained.

“It has come to my attention that IBM has adopted an unlawful policy that blatantly favors applicants of a certain gender or skin color over others, and that managers within the company who refuse to comply with said policy face adverse action, including and up to, termination,” Bailey said.

In a secret video posted by journalist James O'Keefe, IBM’s CEO, Arvind Krishna, reportedly admitted that the company was hiring based on race. In the video, Krishna said that he expected all executives in the company to increase the number of underrepresented minorities by 1%.

“You got to move both forward by a percentage that leads to a plus on your bonus,” Krishna said about hiring… pic.twitter.com/UUK26HX8IP

Krishna warned that people who didn't hire more employees from different races would lose part of their bonuses.

Paul Cormier, who used to be the CEO of Red Hat, a part of IBM, talked about the company's DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion--or--Didn't Even Interview) policies. Cormier said that some leaders didn't meet the company's standards and were held accountable, so they no longer worked for the company.
“We’re going to hold, we are continuing to hold, and going to hold even more of our executives accountable for all of this and they will have metrics around this,” Cormier added.

Bailey’s lawsuit said tying a “quota system to bonus compensations” is “a cudgel against those who do not fall in line.”

The Attorney General said that IBM's "discriminatory practices" were not just because of a few mid-level managers. Instead, he explained that these practices were a deliberate decision by the most powerful people at the company. He stated, "At IBM, there's a culture of racism from the top leaders downward. We're not just talking about some mid-level manager, but about the CEO of the entire company, who threatened his top executives with punishment if they didn't follow his racist policies."
“Missourians deserve answers as to why one of the largest technology and consulting companies in the world, with offices based in Missouri, is discriminating against both prospective and current employees,” he added.

The news outlet had previously revealed that IBM was discriminating against white people, Asian people, and men. They offered an internship that was only available to people from certain backgrounds. This opportunity, which was for “underrepresented minorities,” stated that applicants should be “African American, Hispanic, or Indigenous.”

Another IBM internship, called the “Internship for Undergraduate Women,” stipulated that “applicants must be female, including all students who present or identify as women and/or trans women.”

David Bernstein, a professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia School of Law, said that these internship programs “clearly violate Title VII,” which bars race and sex-based employment preferences.

Tweet

2nd place US women's soccer team now rejects equal pay deal" calls it a PR stunt and "not good enough"

"Can you believe it? We came in 2nd, played poorly and they agree to pay
us the same as the men. Something's fishy. What a bunch of suckers. Hahaha!"

They lost to a 16-and-under boys soccer team in a scrimmage game and only came in second behind Canada at the Tokyo Olympics this year in a rather suck-worthy performance. Still, the U.S. women's soccer team has been demanding "equal pay" to that of the U.S. men's soccer team, in spite of the comparable monetary pittance the women bring in. 

Earlier in the week, the U.S. Soccer Federation offered the men's and women's teams identical contracts, and thus, equal pay in spite of the differences in their skill levels and their money-earning histories.

But the union representing the mediocre women's national team attacked the soccer federation's equal pay offer calling it a "PR stunt." Based on the athletic differences between men and women in most sports, soccer being a standout in ability, it's almost a believable claim because hardly anyone is interested in women's soccer until the olympics rolls around, and even then, not so much. Women's soccer takes in a mere fraction of what the men's teams do.

The union said that the offer was not "fair" nor made in "good faith," possibly because the federation refused to kiss the cleats of the female players. Forward [that's a field position in soccer] Alex Morgan said Wednesday that the female players "still need to chat" about the equal pay offer, and suggested that equality wasn't the team's primary goal after all. 

The goal may actually be to promote the LGBTQ+1.4 community and a pink-haired lesbian player on the women's national team who is clearly overpaid and her team is unable to defeat a team of 16-year-old boys who play for fun.

"We need to look line by line at what they're actually providing, because if you have equal but it's not even what we got before, or to the value that we are, then we still consider that to be not good enough," Morgan said.

In response to the women's national team's balderdash, the U.S. Soccer Federation said clearly that its offer of "identical contracts to the USWNT and USMNT, and to discuss equalizing prize money, is real, authentic and in good faith. A publicity stunt is a 90-minute one-sided movie."

The latter sentence about a 90-minute publicity stunt refers to LFG, the recently released HBO Max documentary (produced by propaganda news, CNN Films,) about the women's team's struggle for equal pay. The Wall Street Journal described LFG as a "good-looking" but "very politicized" film full of "outrageously one-sided arguments."

Perhaps the new contract should stipulate that salaries of players be based on a percentage of the proceeds the seasonal games collect at the gates. That would be fair and equitable, since equity is so important to the left.

Since Joe Biden [his Indian name is "Shines Through Both Ears"] was sworn into office, the women's soccer team has spiraled into decline in performance. While slated to "win it all" in Tokyo, they got humiliated by Sweden in a humiliating 3-0 ass-whooping and then were booted out of gold medal contention by Canada.

In 2019, the women's team sued the U.S. Soccer Federation for gender discrimination and more, in a $66 million lawsuit, which was dismissed by a federal judge who evidently saw the ridiculous suit as frivolous. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. men's soccer team defeated Mexico to win the CONCACAF Gold Cup, further undermining the crybaby argument for "equal pay."

Fill more seats, bring in more revenue, and then you can talk turkey.

Why not subscribe to Brain Flushings and check out the ads on these pages. It costs nothing to subscribe and it's worth every penny. And remember, every time you click on an ad, you help in the fight against the tech giants.

Tweet

UPDATE: Muffet McGraw Notre Dame women's basketball head coach will not hire men

Photo: AP

UPDATE: Notre Dame women's basketball lost to Baylor in the finals and McGraw is now looking for a few good women.

Notre Dame women's basketball head coach, Muffet McGraw, spoke in a recent interview with  Think Progress, and explained her position on why she will never hire another biological male assistant coach. She believes that women can do more to help each other.

Think Progress asked her the question on hiring she emphatically said "no." She has had an all-female staff for the past seven years.

“Women need the opportunity. They deserve the opportunity,” she said.

On Thursday, McGraw was asked about her recent comments.

"Did you know that the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced in 1967 and it still hasn't passed?" she replied. "We need 38 states to agree that discrimination on the basis of sex is unconstitutional. We've had a record number of women running for office and winning, and still we have 23 percent of the House and 25 percent of the Senate."

Well, historically she's a bit off. 

The Equal Rights Amendment designed to guarantee equal rights for all Americans regardless of sex, and sought to end legal distinctions between men and women was introduced to Congress in 1921. It had support from middle-class women but many women of the working class opposed the amendment because it suggested that employed women needed special protection regarding working conditions and employment hours.

With the Women's Movement of the 1960s, ERA gained support and was re-introduced by Rep. Martha Griffiths (D-MI) in 1971. The House approved the amendment in October of that year, and on March 22, 1972, the Senate approved it. Now all the amendment needed was for 38 states to ratify it and "boom," it would be law as specified in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

But by 1977, the amendment got only 35 of the required 38 state legislature votes to ratify it, and it had bipartisan support.

Phyllis Schlafly mobilized conservative women to oppose the amendment because she believed it would harm women in cases of child custody and alimony support, and it would leave them open for the military draft.

However, it wasn't only conservatives who opposed the amendment. Labor feminists were also against its passage because they too believed it would eliminate the protection of women in the work force.

Five of the 35 states that signed on with the amendment [ID, KY, NE, TN, and SD] voted to revoke their original ratification. 

In fact, in 1960, the Democratic National Committee rejected the proposal after the AFL-CIO, ACLU, the American Federation of Teachers, Americans for Democratic Action, American Nurse's Association, and other equally liberal-minded organizations, were dead set against the amendment.

But to listen to argument in the media, you'd never know that ERA has been opposed by the liberal left, the people who supposedly fight for women's rights.

"Girls are socialized to know when they come out, gender rules are already set. Men run the world. Men have the power. Men make the decisions. It's always the man that is the stronger one,” she said, not taking into account that women are the majority of voters.

This isn't an argument against McGraw hiring only women. That works for both genders and it's understandable from her perspective.

However, to say that women basically don't have equal rights as men simply dismisses the current discrimination laws.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Family Housing Act have guaranteed people equal rights to all regardless of sex. The main reason that ERA has been difficult to pass is because of actual biological differences between the sexes and the fear of actually losing some of their rights and social outcomes [e.g., child custody].

So, by all means Ms. McGraw, don't hire men if you believe that women understand women's basketball and the players better than men. But please don't have women play the victim--we've got Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for that.

Follow Brain Flushings and have a few laughs while you get a conservative viewpoint. Politics is the new NFL without the mindless kneeling and this blog will both inform you and will hopefully entertain you bigly.

Tweet

Two NYPD cops denied their donuts

An under-qualified employee at a New York City Dunkin' Donuts is accused of telling two police officers "I don't serve cops," as reported by the New York Post. 

President of the Detectives' Endowment Association Michael Palladino calls the discriminatory behavior of the employee "disgraceful" and called for a boycott of Dunkin' Donuts.

"I assume it is an isolated incident. Nevertheless, Dunkin' Donuts corporate should issue an apology to the NYPD and until that happens, I have asked detectives and their families to refrain from patronizing the stores."

Palladino believes the city's political leaders are also partly to blame for what happened with that barista and two of New York City's Finest. He says the politicians have "encouraged this type of behavior by constantly demonizing cops and pushing their decriminalization agenda. It's time for the same politicians to step up, take some responsibility and condemn what occurred."

Here's what allegedly occurred: a little past noon on Sunday, two NYPD officers in plainclothes assigned to the 73rd Precinct's detective squad entered Dunkin' Donuts at 1993 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn. 

They wore dress pants, shirts and ties, badges and pistols on their belts, and waited in line to order.

Their mission in being there was to acquire ice cream at the Baskin-Robbins.

When they reached the counter, the cretin-like clerk ignored them and instead, asked the customer behind the pair what they wanted. The customer said the police were there before him but the clerk replied, "Yeah, I know, but I don't serve cops," according to the New York Post. 

A store manager, whose hopes and dreams of becoming a famous actor were shattered by a serious lacking of talent, disputed the incident. He claimed that, according to security video, the cops were waiting at the wrong counter--they were at the counter where one picks up their order rather than placing it.

"You can see on the security tape: they stand here for five minutes, while other customers were being served. One customer even ordered ice cream, and they must've not liked that because they left the store," the told the Post. 

The manager refused to give his name to the Post and also refused to allow them to view the video because he may have been lying, which was easy to discern because of his poor acting abilities. 

But just for the fun of it, let's call the manager 'Vinny Boombots'.

'Vinny' said the store began receiving phone calls from other cops, asking why they didn't serve two officers. "And I kept trying to explain that we serve everyone; we have nothing but respect for the police, and that they were standing at the wrong counter. It was busy at the time, and we were busy serving customers," he said, (not adding that they, as detectives, should have figured out which line was which).

On Thursday, an NBC News Radio "reporter" posted a tweet with a statement from Dunkin' Donuts regarding the incident:

"Dunkin' Donuts is aware of the recent situation at a franchise in Brooklyn and we continue to monitor this matter. The franchisee who owns and operates this restaurant informed us immediately upon learning of this situation earlier this week, he contacted one of the police officers involved to personally apologize for any negative experience he may have had in his store. Dunkin' Donuts has a long history of supporting local law enforcement and all those who do so much to ensure the safety of our neighborhoods and our country. Our franchisees are committed to serving each and every guest with respect and courtesy. The franchisee of the Brooklyn restaurant is meeting with the police officer he spoke to earlier this week in person to hopefully bring this to a satisfactory conclusion for all involved."

A satisfactory conclusion would be to make it illegal to refuse service to any group of people, be they police, other first responders, Trump supporters, conservatives, military, old white men, religious people of any faith and people of any race.

And any scumtruffle who refuses to serve them should not only be fired, but prosecuted and forced to memorize the U.S. Constitution before being released from prison.


Tweet

Cannes Beach Burkini Ban

Cannes, France -- No longer will burkinis be permitted on the beach at the French resort of Cannes. A burkini is a full-body swimsuit that is the equivalent of the Islamic cloth coffin known as a burqa. The burkini covers the head as well as most of the body and officials in Cannes believe that it should not be permitted on the beach for "security reasons."

Some people believe that it's discriminatory and anti-Muslim and will make matters worse with jihadists of the "Religion of Special Needs" as they may go on a killing spree over this issue.

The ban is at the height of the French Riviera's vacation season and at a time when France is on high alert for Islamic terrorism. If France doesn't give terrorists what they want, which is full Sharia-compliance, "somebody's going to get hurt," to quote Russell Peters. 

Even when it has nothing to do with giving Islamists what they want, they still attack infidels. Recent jihadist attacks in Nice and in a Catholic church in northwest France prove that fact.

Cannes Mayor David Lisnard issued a city ordinance in late July forbidding beachwear that doesn't respect "good morals and secularism." Telling a religious Islamic extremist that he or she must appear 'secular' is just asking for trouble. 

The ordinance notes that swimwear "manifesting religious affiliation in an ostentatious way, while France and its religious sites are currently the target of terrorist attacks, could create risks of trouble to public order."

But French Muslims don't believe that they are at risk--they believe that people not wearing burkinis are at risk at the beach. But Muslim violators risk a 38 euro ($42) fine if they refuse to comply with the law.

Lisnard said of the burkini that it's "the uniform of extremist Islamism, not of the Muslim religion," in a Friday interview with the Nice-Matin newspaper. He also said that fines would apply as well to Indian bathers who wear saris into the water because it could hamper lifeguards in their effort to save them if necessary.

One beach goer, Diana Bishay, from Egypt and living in Paris, referred to women who cover themselves up, "We have to respect the society we live in." 

What an interesting concept. 

In fact, it's a concept that's strictly enforced in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others. You cannot even enter Saudi Arabia with a Bible or if you're a Jew. 

Islam is a religion that wants respect without giving it.



Tweet