Should you pay if your business is attacked by ransomware?

Cleveland Hopkins Airport flight information boards have been out of service since last Monday (story here). Yesterday, after paying contractors more than $750,000 to restore them, the City finally acknowledged the cause—a ransomware attack.

Ransomware is malicious software that locks and encrypts a victim’s computer data. The criminal then demands a ransom to restore access, usually within a set amount of time. If the ransom is not paid, the data is destroyed.

I REALLY thought people knew better not to advertise jobs “for whites”

Cynet Systems, an IT and engineering staffing company, had a viral mess on its hands over the weekend, after it posted a job that asked for candidates “Preferably Caucasian.”

WIRTW #550 (the #NoSpoilers edition)

What are your plans this weekend? I'll be avoiding the internet until 10:30 Sunday night.

We have a 6:40 Saturday showing of Avengers: Endgame, followed by Sunday night on the couch to see if the the gathered forces of good at Winterfell can stop the Night King and his army of the dead on Game of Thrones.

😒 where is Thanos when you need him... #Eurovison #Euronvision pic.twitter.com/a1QuqCjKNP

— The Night King (@WightsKing) May 12, 2018

I'll need a Xanax and a glass of wine to get to sleep after all this is done. #NoSpoilers

Here's what I read this week:

Supreme Court signs off on death by a thousand cuts

Lingchi was a form of torture and execution used in China from roughly 900 BC until China banned in 1905. It translates variously as the slow process, the lingering death, or slow slicing. It's more commonly known as "death by a thousand cuts," in which the torturer uses a knife to methodically remove portions of the body over an extended period of time, ultimately resulting in death.

Yesterday, in Lamps Plus v. Varela, the Supreme Court held that parties to an arbitration agreement cannot be required to arbitrate their claims as a class action unless they specifically agreed to do so in the arbitration agreement.

This disability discrimination lawsuit was no party

Party City has agreed with the EEOC to pay $155,000 to settle an ADA lawsuit the agency filed on behalf of a rejected job applicant on the autism spectrum and suffering from severe anxiety.

According to the lawsuit, the individual had been receiving services from Easter Seals of New Hampshire to build up her self-confidence, including working and applying for a job. These services included a job coach.

Supreme Court grants review in three cases to decide, once and for all, whether Title VII protects LGBTQ employees from discrimination

Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals in three cases, to decide whether Title VII's prohibition against "sex discrimination" expressly includes prohibitions against LGBTQ discrimination.

Does Title VII protect heterosexuals from discrimination?

So meet, ROBERTa! Shopping in the women’s department for a swimsuit at the BR Target. For all of you people that say you don’t care what bathroom it’s using, you’re full of shit!! Let this try to walk in the women’s bathroom while my daughters are in there!! #hellwillfreezeoverfirst

Suppose you own a company, and one of your employees posts this rant on her personal Facebook page. Further suppose that in addition to owning the company, you are also a lesbian, and take offense to the employee's views. If you discipline the employee for her Facebook post, and later fire the employee after she complains about the discipline, can the employee sue for retaliation under Title VII? In other words, does Title VII protect heterosexuals from discrimination in reaction to anti-LGBTQ speech?

In O'Daniel v. Industrial Service Solutions, the 5th Circuit said no.

The case put the plaintiff, unabashedly and vocally anti-LGBTQ (as expressed in the at-issue Facebook post), in the position of arguing that Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Court held that under its own precedent, O'Daniel could not move forward on her claim.

O'Daniel claims in essence that she was retaliated against because she "opposed" discrimination perpetrated against her on the basis of her heterosexual orientation.… Title VII in plain terms does not cover "sexual orientation." … Because the law in this circuit is clear, we cannot accept O'Daniel’s … suggestions that this panel either overrule the precedents or assume arguendo that the "trend" has upended them.

Thus, because the 5th Circuit does not recognize sexual orientation as class Title VII protects, and employee's complaints about her employer discriminating against her because she is heterosexual could not support a retaliation claim: "Title VII protects an employee only from retaliation for complaining about the types of discrimination it prohibits."

Two points to make about this opinion.

First, if Title VII equates LGBTQ discrimination to "sex" discrimination (as I, like many other courts and the EEOC, believe it does), then logic says that it must also protect heterosexuals from discrimination at the hands of the LGBTQ community because of their sexual orientation. Any other result is logically inconsistent.

Secondly, this employee was not fired because she complained about discrimination. She was fired because she exhibited extremely poor judgment through her Facebook rant. As the concurring opinion succinctly and correctly states: "Simply put, Title VII does not grant employees the right to make online rants about gender identity with impunity." If the employee ranted against interracial marriage, and the company's African-American owner fired her, would anyone think she has a valid claim? This case is no different. The law protects the employee from discrimination and retaliation, but it does not protect the employee's right to express bigoted views, on her personal Facebook page or otherwise.

* Photo by Jim Wilson on Unsplash