Dear Ms. Adams,
You were done an injustice. The courts have established that your pay was sexually discriminatory and you were wrongly terminated, and the jury has done what they could to rectify that wrong.
But you are making an error: Katie Hobbs did not discriminate against you, and is not the cause of the injustice that was done to you. Secretary Hobbs took responsibility for her part in firing you – for cause – but she had no intent to retaliate against you. The court found there was a lack of sufficient procedure in place to document and escalate the causes that led to your termination, not that Secretary Hobbs intended to retaliate by firing you.
Secretary Hobbs did not set your pay, nor your conditions of employment, nor the procedures to hire and fire staff: the Senate President at the time had complete and sole control of all that.
That person is then-Senate President – now Representative – Andy Biggs.
The courts found the defendant, the Arizona Senate, discriminated against you in pay and conditions of employment because of your sex, but not due to your race. Nowhere in the record is ANY evidence that you complained to decision-makers about disparate pay based on your race, and the court found that the evidence concerning your complaint of sex-based pay disparities alone was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
Senate President Andy Biggs allocated the staff budgets, and set the sexually-discriminatory pay, and fostered the discriminatory work culture that resulted in the injustice you suffered. Not Secretary Hobbs.
Secretary Hobbs was not a defendant in your lawsuits. Secretary Hobbs bears no liability for the compensation the jury awarded you. Secretary Hobbs was merely a fact witness, one listed on your own witness list, one whose testimony helped you win your case.
Yet, now you are questioning Secretary Hobbs’ fitness for office? Why?
Because you think Secretary Hobbs discriminated or retaliated against you because you are a woman?
Seriously?
You must be, because the court found nothing about racial discrimination in your case, let alone that Secretary Hobbs acted out of any racial animus, as you insinuate. I wonder if you are making that racial insinuation only now because it is more believable to the public that a white woman discriminated against you due to your race, than it is that a woman in elected politics discriminated against you because you are a woman?
So why ARE you attacking Secretary Hobbs?
You SHOULD be angry – at the GOP majority, and specifically, at Andy Biggs for systemic and institutional sexist discrimination.
But you are NOT calling Andy Biggs unfit for office in your press releases and statements.
And you are NOT calling on Andy Biggs to resign for discriminating against you.
And you are NOT intimating that Andy Biggs is a racist, as – I can assure you – HE actually IS.
Aren’t you really just blaming Secretary Hobbs because she is the most prominent and controversial target you could find to make the biggest noise in the press?
Aren’t you really just angry at Secretary Hobbs because she lost faith in your judgment and professionalism, and said so publicly?
Secretary Hobbs was very clear about the reasons she, and Senate Republican chief of staff Wendy Baldo, and Democratic chief of staff Jeff Winkler, all agreed that they needed to fire you:
- You embarrassed yourself, your colleague Ms. Lisette Flores, and the Democratic Caucus members and staff when you acted in a manner that was “belligerent, aggressive, and just unprofessional”, by “demeaning” Ms. Flores at a meeting in front of the entire caucus, because she got the job you wanted; [Katie Hobbs’ testimony pages 15-16];
- You unprofessionally missed work (forcing staff to re-assign your unfinished assignments) without notifying any Members or your supervisor that you had to be absent due to a medical emergency of your adult son, and; [Katie Hobbs’ testimony, pages 20-21];
- You unprofessionally complained to the entire Democratic Caucus leadership about your pay, despite them having no control of that, and you having already been told how to make your allegations known through proper channels. [Katie Hobbs’ testimony, pages 17-20].
I can’t help but think that your poor judgment, belligerence, and lack of professionalism (and I would add vindictiveness), which got you fired in the first place, are also the reasons that you are publicly castigating Secretary Hobbs, instead of the real culprit here – Andy Biggs.
In fact, you haven’t criticized ANY Republican for the institutional sexual discrimination that flourished in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Why is that, I wonder?
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You never answered my repetitive questions about why you believe Hobbs’s three reasons for firing Adams are valid. So now in this post you add lying to evasion.
Being called a liar by a guy who won’t admit the his candidate lost a free and fair election is a special kind hilarious. Give up, Johnny Blog Jester. You are done when you are a notorious liar and all you have left is calling the other guy a liar.
I trust my readers to draw their own conclusions as to what the score is when I ask them to total up 1+1.
At this point it seems you are just trying to get the last word. Hint: not gonna happen.
John, you start your long comment with some creative writing about Dems and Me Too
You make up a story, create a narrative that suits your needs, and then use that made up narrative to make your attack.
This is why no one takes you seriously.
While it is somewhat entertaining to watch you try to out lawyer actual lawyers, and get smacked down hard, overall, you’re tiresome as a troll.
Intellectually dishonest and prone to fantasy.
The reasons that Hobbs gave for firing Adams were more personnel related issues than issues related to race or sex, so your reasons for not answering the questions makes no sense. Again, the three reasons all deal with the way supervisors treat employees. Since Hobbs wants to become the governor of Arizona which would make her the head of all state employees, the way she handles personnel matters is very relevant. Actually, this issue, which you have helped bring to light, suggest another reason why Hobbs should not be governor. That reason is that she may not deal fairly with state employees. Noticed that I said “may” because I’m open to your explaining why the three reason she gave are justifiable reasons for firing someone. (Note that I did not say firing a “woman of color” because I know that that fact makes you nervous and defensive.)
However, I don’t want to put too much pressure on you, so why don’t you just justify one of the three reasons Hobbs gave for firing Adams. Let’s go with the last, which I will rewrite below:
“The final reason, “You unprofessionally complained to the entire Democratic Caucus leadership about your pay, despite them having no control of that, and you having already been told how to make your allegations known through proper channels.” This one’s a real doozy and I can’t believe you two are actually supporting it. So let me get this straight, if a black female believes that she is being discriminated against and her boss tells her “No you’re not so take a walk,” if that black female talks to other members who have positions of power within the organization, like the other members of the Democratic caucus, that is grounds to fire her. So you’re saying that the other members of the Democrat caucus should’ve been kept in the dark and that victims of discrimination once rebuked by their boss must lay down and play dead. You people are really warriors for women and minority rights.”
If you are uncomfortable with answering this question and thereby justifying your support of Hobbs’s position on it, feel free to punt to AZBlueMeanie. Maybe he won’t evade the answer like you did. He does seem a bit more transparent than you.
Clearly, nothing about you or your comments makes me uncomfortable, or I would do as your propagandists do and disallow your participation in any discussions. I find your comments instructive and illustrative of the bad-faith arguments, utter disdain for facts and truth, and shameless hypocrisy of the GOP. But you don’t get to demand what I say, how I say it, or when. You can play that game with the perps you no doubt loved to knock about in interrogations when you were a cop, but you are dealing with professionals here: you don’t set the rules. I’ve answered every one of your criticisms and questions; I don’t care much whether you feel satisfied as I know you never will be.
Is it just me, or are the actions of Michael Bryan and AZBlueMeanie reminiscent of the tactics that were eventually used by Democrat operatives against women in the Me Too movement.
In the beginning, many Democrats were all onboard with the Me Too movement and even articulated the belief that all women should be believed when making accusations of sexual harassment or worse against men. However, their enthusiasm and support for the movement began to reverse when some women began to make accusations against powerful Democrat politicians.
Suddenly, the women making accusations against Democrats were not to be believed because they were not credible. The new tactic was to discredit these women so that the Democrat politicians remain in office so they could continue to advance liberal causes, even pro-choice laws. I suppose the rationale was that the greater harm was to remove these liberals from office even though it meant that they got a free ride for horrible behavior and the reputation of their accusers might be destroyed.
Seems like a similar tactic is being used against Adams. Now I am not saying that the motives of Michael and Meanie are that but the result sure seems to be the same and they should recognize that and deal with it.
So let’s look at the three reasons Hobbs gave for firing Adams. These reasons, fully supported by Michael and Meanie, discredit Adams and they are quite lame, the reasons, not Michael and Meanie I mean.
The first one was, “You embarrassed yourself, your colleague Ms. Lisette Flores, and the Democratic Caucus members and staff when you acted in a manner that was “belligerent, aggressive, and just unprofessional”, by “demeaning” Ms. Flores at a meeting in front of the entire caucus, because she got the job you wanted.” So let me get this straight, when a woman is discriminated against and becomes upset and perhaps belligerent and even aggressive, instead of understanding her and comforting her, Hobbs and you both think it’s OK to fire her. When confronted with discrimination you think women should be docile and not aggressive. How caring.
The next reason was, “You unprofessionally missed work (forcing staff to re-assign your unfinished assignments) without notifying any Members or your supervisor that you had to be absent due to a medical emergency of your adult son.” The problem with this reason was that I seem to remember courtroom testimony from another staff member that Adams’ supervisor actually okayed her absence. Oooooops!
The final reason, “You unprofessionally complained to the entire Democratic Caucus leadership about your pay, despite them having no control of that, and you having already been told how to make your allegations known through proper channels.” This one’s a real doozy and I can’t believe you two are actually supporting it. So let me get this straight, if a black female believes that she is being discriminated against and her boss tells her “No you’re not so take a walk,” if that black female talks to other members who have positions of power within the organization, like the other members of the Democratic caucus, that is grounds to fire her. So you’re saying that the other members of the Democrat caucus should’ve been kept in the dark and that victims of discrimination once rebuked by their boss must lay down and play dead. You people are really warriors for women and minority rights.
Of course, AZBlueMeanie drives one more nail into Adams’ reputation in his latest post, when after fine combing the court transcripts he concludes that Adams’ lawyering skills were unprofessional and that she only won because of a sympathetic jury.
Specifically, Meanie said, “If Ms. Adams’ lawyering skills in this case are indicative of the work she was doing for the Arizona Senate – and I do not know this nor make any judgment on this – I am inclined to believe that there may have been reasons to support her termination that had nothing to do with her gender or race. A lawyer who had engaged in such unprofessional behavior in handling litigation would never have been hired to work for my law office, I can assure you. In reading through the trial record, it is obvious to me that had this case been tried to the judge and not a jury, Ms. Adams would have lost this case. She benefitted from a friendly jury that I suspect bore animosity towards the Arizona Senate, the actual defendant in this case.
Personally, I have never seen in this blog such a relentless and persistent and mean-spirited attack on the reputation of another. I have to wonder whether the real motive here is to salvage Hobbs’s campaign by discrediting Adams personally, as opposed to the challenging the credibility of her allegations.
Clearly, the Democrat establishment is terrified at the thought of not having Hobbs at the top of the ticket because the back bench is quite thin.
I continue to find your mad scramble to “what-about” this matter and obvious obsession with defending Ms. Adams to be very interesting and revealing, Johnny Jester. I continue to wonder why the AZGOP Caucus is so anxious to defend a Democratic staffer who successfully sued the GOP=controlled State Senate for discriminating against her? Could it be because she is making flagrantly baseless charges of racism against our leading candidate for Governor? Gosh, what a coincidence!
It’s certainly not based any principle of ‘believing victims’ or ‘respecting women’ or ‘combating racism’; we can all see how this is merely a convenient political weapon to you and a distraction from the systemic racism and sexism that your party not only tolerates but champions, excuses and tries to encode in our laws.
We all know where YOUR party stands on equal rights for women, on defending the victims of racial and sexual discrimination and sexual assault, and on protecting the rights and dignity of minorities: your party (and you personally) continues to defend an ex-President who has been credibly accused of rape and proudly admitted his own habitual sexual assault and harassment of women, and who called violently, white-supremacist racists “fine people”, and who called economic refugees ‘rapists’, and who has systemically and repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of our elections (especially in minority-majority areas) because those minorities had the temerity to actually vote against him; your party continues to feature and celebrate the leadership of a Congressman who is under criminal investigation for having sexually trafficked an under-age girl across state lines, and; your party rushed through the confirmation of a very credibly alleged rapist onto our nation’s highest court.
Get back to me when you apply your concern-trolling standards to your own. Until then, your bad-faith arguments will find no soil here, Johnny Jester. Good tries, but your crocodile tears and hypocritical conversion to the cause of women’s and minority rights will convince few here.
And clearly, the Republican establishment is terrified of facing Hobbs. Duh.
Your reply is a total invasion of my criticism of you and Meanie. I gave specific reasons why the reasons that Hobbs gave for the firing of Adams were lame, the same reasons that you and Meanie support. Instead of addressing my specific points against your position, you simply attacked me in a pretty obvious evasion of my criticism.You are not answering my questions because you have no good answer because you are wrong, just like Hobbs was wrong in firing Adams for those lame reasons.
Regarding my preference for who runs for governor on the Democrat line, it doesn’t matter to me. A damaged Hobbs would probably have the same poor chance of winning as the backbenchers you’ll have to go to to replace her.
I’m not evading – I’m rejecting your criticism or opinions on the matter as irrelevant, hypocritical, and not worth considering. In short, I don’t care if your opinion is that any reason related to race or sex is ‘lame’; your position to criticize me is very much the pot calling the kettle black and is merely rhetorical and sententious. Your evaluation of anything related to sexism and racism is pretty much guaranteed to be a self-serving special pleading, not a good faith argument. I don’t accept nor care that you, of all people, think I’m wrong about much – and especially not this. In your parlance, your conclusion that something is ‘lame’ is lame.
If you think that, then you are not just bad at arguing and lying, you are bad a politics. Of course, you’ve never had to run in an actual competitive election, so I shouldn’t be surprised you are terrible at real politics.
I gave you my professional opinion as a lawyer who specialized in labor and employment law for over 25 years. I lost count of the number of matters I handled, at least in the hundreds, maybe more. You have handled exactly ZERO employment discrimination matters, it is probably safe to assume. So what the hell do you know? I do know what attorney conduct in court is unacceptable, and the judge in this case admonished Ms. Adams numerous times throughout this litigation. It’s in the case record, not that you care. Do you also want to claim that Judge Douglas Rayes was making “a relentless and persistent and mean-spirited attack on the reputation” of Ms. Adams? I specifically said, as you quote, “I do not know this nor make any judgment on this” as to Ms. Adams work for the Senate minority.
But maybe you do. You were in the Senate in the 52nd Legislature when all of this occurred. You were chair the Government Committee, and Vice-Chair of Appropriations, and Public safety, Military and Technology. Ms. Adams testified that there was no system in place for employee reviews, and no system in place for employee complaints. Republicans controlled the Senate, and thus controlled personnel policies. This is bad employment practices. Even small businesses (under 15 employees) have these employee policies – I have written numerous employee policy handbooks. What role did anyone in the GOP Caucus, including yourself, play in enacting personnel policies? Or was it left to the machinations of Senate President Andy Biggs? Your persistent trolling on this post leads me to believe that you may know more about the lack of personnel polices of which Ms. Adams complained than you have disclosed. Just call it litigator intuition.
Something I have always been curious about: other than your buddy John Huppenthal, whose political career we had a hand in ending (actually, he destroyed himself), no other elected Republican has so relentlessly and persistently with mean-spirited attacks trolled this blog (throwing your words right back atcha, Troll Boy), for at least the past 14 years. Are you like the designated troll for the Republican Party? Or are you like John Huppenthal, you just can’t stop yourself because of your hubris? I am not aware of any other elected Republican over the past 14 years who has even commented on this blog, even when invited to do so. This is a curious thing.
Yep, it’s just you.
It seems I have to point out yet another reason we consider you our Blog Jester, Johnny. You seem to fundamentally fail to appreciate the nature of evidence. You draw an equivalence between the sexual harassment and assault that spawned the #MeToo movement and Ms. Adams’ employment discrimination case. Let me make plain the ways that this is vapid and connected only by the fact that there were women involved.
You see, Johnny, most humans prefer to have sex – regardless of the level of consent between the parties – in PRIVATE. That’s just human nature. So the evidence of sexual encounters that are unwanted, abusive, or violent, is often just the eye-witness testimony of the victim – generally a woman – and hence, women should be believed, because it is a simple fact that women very rarely lie or exaggerate such testimony. Following so far, you smooth-brained addlepate?
Now, on the other hand, most collaborative workplace behavior is, by its nature, done with many others in public places. Thus there will be many witnesses to poor behavior toward others, or failures in work responsibilities will be seen by many, who will be able to testify about those incidents or deficiencies. In such circumstances ‘believe the woman’ merely flies in the face of the availability of testimony from a variety of people and viewpoints. So, not only does it generally not apply to public workplace behavior by its nature, ‘believe the woman’ becomes a sexist demand that we believe a woman’s testimony over all the other contradictory evidence.
The fact that you seem not to understand this whole distinction tells me you were a terrible cop, and your invocation of it in such an apposite context tells me that you actually have contempt for the principle that we should believe sexual assault and abuse victims, and believe the heuristic to be a mere rhetorical weapon used by Democrats to attack powerful men, which you can merely turn around at your convenience to use any time a woman is involved. That tells me your argument is in bad faith, you are likely a sexist pig, and possibly a sexual deviant who resents the power of women to resist your utterly creepy advances.
So, that is why I reject your bad faith question and feel no need to respond to your silly, offensive, and creepy implications and questions. I will just reiterate for perhaps the 100th time that anything we have said about the behavior of Ms. Adams regarding her case comes from testimony and findings in the court records. Unlike you and your ilk, we don’t make things up: we just stick to the facts and draw reasonable and rational inferences.
Now, you janky-brained pud thumper, go jam something in an orifice it won’t fit in. Boy, I really feel mean this morning.
Having re-read this comment thread, it now occurs to me that I have never seen Johnny the Blog Jester put SO much effort and time into attacking a particular post. Seems I must have struck a nerve by directing blame to where it really belongs: on the Republican caucus and, specifically, on their leadership at the time – Andy Biggs. Anyone with any doubt about where blame for legitimate harm of which Ms. Adams complained – and for which she has been compensated – need look no further than this desperate scramble by Jester Johnny to deflect and distract to the best of his – admitted limited – abilities.
Thanks for the reminder John!
Please donate in Representative John Kavanagh’s name to one of these fine organizations:
raicestexas.org – Providing free and low cost legal assistance to immigrants
aclu.org – Defending the Bill of Rights for over 100 years
plannedparenthood.org – Providing healthcare services for women and men for over 100 years
Remember to donate In Honor of Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh.
It makes an already good deed even more special!
“Aren’t you really just blaming Secretary Hobbs because she is the most prominent and controversial target you could find to make the biggest noise in the press?”
OMG! That sounds like slander to me. Were I you Michael, I would be worried because Adams has a good batting average in suing people.
I have been reading through this thread, and I have had quite enough from this ignorant fool who clearly has not reviewed the trial record, as I have.
Ms. Adams is a licensed attorney, but was apparently a corporate compliance attorney in Washington before coming to Arizona. She told the jury that this was her first jury trial. She was proceeding as a pro se litigant, which is why the judge bent over backwards to allow her every opportunity to present her claim, and did not sanction her for her several failures as a trial attorney.
Throughout the proceedings in this case, the judge had to admonish Ms. Adams for not following the rules of court procedure, and failing to comply with the court’s orders. Here are just a couple of examples:
Minute entry order October 17, 2019: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1026686/gov.uscourts.azd.1026686.219.0.pdf
6 Ms. Adams had every opportunity to produce the required mitigating evidence. Throughout discovery, the Senate issued various damages-related discovery requests to Ms. Adams. (Doc. 132-1 at 3-16.) Despite extensive back-and-forth, Ms. Adams failed to produce any responsive information. After the Senate expressed its concerns during a November 22, 2017 hearing, the Court explained to Ms. Adams that the law required her to support her damages claims with evidence in order to recover. (Id. at 19-20.) At the hearing, Ms. Adams expressed that she understood what she was required to produce. (Id. at 20.) Thereafter, the Court ordered Ms. Adams to respond to the Senate’s discovery requests. (Doc. 46.) However, despite the passage of over a year, Ms. Adams did not comply. In fact, she failed to provide any evidence of her tax returns, interim earnings, or other basic damages-related information. Nevertheless, the Court gave Ms. Adams one final chance to meet her burden. On June 17, 2019, the Court ordered Ms. Adams to provide all damage evidence and calculations related to damage evidence to the Senate and to the Court no later than June 20, 2019. (Doc. 159). Plaintiff did not do so. Consequently, the Court granted in part the Senate’s motion in limine (Doc. 132), precluding Ms. Adams from introducing any damage evidence, regarding her past lost wages, following the date in which she stopped drawing unemployment benefits. (Doc. 162.)
Ms. Adams failed to produce mitigating evidence across the board, generating concerns identical to those spurring the June 21, 2019 order. See Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., Inc., 224 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that the Ninth Circuit imposes a duty on plaintiffs seeking any form of back pay to mitigate damages).
Order granting new trial March 24, 2020, https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.1026686/gov.uscourts.azd.1026686.265.0.pdf
Ms. Adams failed to respond to the Senate’s motion for new trial. (Doc. 249.) Failure to respond is deemed consent to the granting of a motion. LRCiv 7.2(i). However, the Court, sua sponte, gave Ms. Adams an additional opportunity to file a response. In her response, Ms. Adams failed to cite any evidence from the trial record that she had complained to her employer that she believed her lesser salary was the result of sex or race discrimination. The Court therefore issued an order setting oral argument and, giving her a third opportunity, directed Ms. Adams to come prepared to present “the portions of the trial evidentiary record where she presented evidence to the jury that she complained she was being paid less than her coworkers because of her race or sex.”
At the March 10, 2020 oral argument, when Ms. Adams was still unable to direct the court to any portion of the trial transcript where the pertinent testimony could be found, the Court took a recess to give her yet another opportunity to do so. After the recess Ms. Adams directed the Court to portions of the trial transcript that, in her view, constituted evidence that she had complained to her employer that she was being paid less than her coworkers because of her race or sex.
Beginning with the July 10, 2019 transcript, Ms. Adams cites her [own] testimony on page 16 line 21 through page 18 line 8, and page 19 lines 7 through 9. This testimony encompasses Ms. Adams’ discovery of the Senate pay schedules which showed she was being paid less than some of the other employees. This testimony describes her email to Ms. Baldo asking how to request a pay raise. There was no testimony that she expressed a concern to Ms. Baldo that the discrepancy was due to her race or sex.
Second, Ms. Adams directs the Court to page 10 line 13 through page 11 line 21. This testimony reflects that Ms. Adams discussed with Ms. Baldo her belief that she was being discriminated against, generally. However, this testimony does not indicate that Ms. Adams alleged sex or race discrimination, particularly.
Nowhere in this cited evidence does Ms. Adams state that she believed she was being treated differently because of her race or sex. Moreover, her testimony at trial was that the differential treatment that Ms. Adams alleged to Ms. Baldo involved Ms. Adams’ workload, not her pay. Whether Ms. Adams was terminated for complaining about disproportionate workload based on race or sex was not the question posed to the jury.
Third, Ms. Adams cites pages 12 and 13 of her testimony. This testimony directly undercuts her case. In this testimony, Ms. Adams states, “I didn’t walk in there and say, ‘I feel like I’m being discriminated based on my race,’” and admits, “it was not the work of women per se” that resulted in different treatment. Within these pages, Ms. Adams also notes that she complained to Ms. Baldo about the hiring of Jeff Winkler over Patsy Osmon. This is not the retaliation claim she sought to prove to the jury. This is not evidence that she complained that the discrepancy in her pay was the result of her sex or race.
Fourth, pages 44 and 45 of her testimony, to which Ms. Adams directs the Court, address Ms. Adams’ unhappiness with Mr. Winkler, and her complaints to Ms. Baldo about democratic staff working in the basement without windows. Once more, these complaints do not concern her pay or sex or race.
Fifth, Ms. Adams cites page 57 line 21 to page 58 line 13 and page 67 lines 14 through 23 of her testimony, which concern her discovery of and conversations with coworkers regarding Senate salaries. Once again, this testimony does not indicate that Ms. Adams complained to anyone at the Senate about sex or race discrimination.
Finally, Ms. Adams directs the Court to the July 11, 2019 testimony of Mr. Winkler, in which he declared that Ms. Adams never made an allegation of discrimination to him and that he was unaware of her making such allegations to anyone else in the Senate. This testimony obviously does not support Ms. Adams’ case.
In sum, despite ample opportunity to do so, Ms. Adams has not identified any evidence presented to the jury that she complained to her employer about race or sex discrimination in terms of pay, which is the specific protected activity upon which her retaliation claim is based.2 Consequently, the jury could not properly find for Ms. Adams on her retaliation claim.
The Court granted a new trial on the retaliation claim, leading to the second trial for apportionment of damages.
I litigated labor and employment law claims for over 25 years. If Ms. Adams’ lawyering skills in this case are indicative of the work she was doing for the Arizona Senate – and I do not know this nor make any judgment on this – I am inclined to believe that there may have been reasons to support her termination that had nothing to do with her gender or race. A lawyer who had engaged in such unprofessional behavior in handling litigation would never have been hired to work for my law office, I can assure you.
In reading through the trial record, it is obvious to me that had this case been tried to the judge and not a jury, Ms. Adams would have lost this case. She benefitted from a friendly jury that I suspect bore animosity towards the Arizona Senate, the actual defendant in this case. The judge makes it clear in his rulings that he did not think much of the evidence presented in this case, but he felt duty bound to abide by the decision of the jury. The Judge is wrong on this point. If the evidence was as insufficient as he he appears to believe, he should have granted the Arizona Senate’s Rule 50 motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The evidence did not support the verdict. This is clear error, and grounds for appeal.
Based upon the trial evidence I reviewed, this appears to have been what I would consider a “runaway jury” verdict. It was based on a desire to punish a disfavored defendant, the Arizona Senate, rather than the actual evidence presented, as the judge appeared to believe.
Blue, this deserves to be a post, not just a comment. I appreciate the quite thorough discussion of the actual record of the case, in contrast to the inaccurate, ignorant, and emotional portrayal of the case in the media.
As to your concern trolling, Mr. Blog Jester Kavanaugh, while your concern is surely precious to all here, I think we’ll be just fine.
“You were done an injustice. The courts have established that your pay was sexually discriminatory and you were wrongly terminated, and the jury has done what they could to rectify that wrong. But you are making an error: Katie Hobbs did not discriminate against you, and is not the cause of the injustice that was done to you. Secretary Hobbs took responsibility for her part in firing you – for cause – but she had no intent to retaliate against you.
Hmmmmm. If Hobbs was not the cause of the pay disparity, which is plausible because she does not set the pay, but she also fired Adams for cause and not retaliation as she and you claim, then is Hobbs’s apology phony and merely political theater because it is not needed at all? Is Hobbs disregarding the truth to salvage her campaign? Do we really need a governor who, when she does no wrong, admits to wrong doing for political purposes?
Hobbs and you want to have it both ways and you can’t have it that way without looking deceptive and disingenuous, which is how you all look. Although I do give AZBlueMeanie credit for being more open about his position.
However, you have ignored my original question which was about the slanderous statement by Michael about Adams’ motive. As always, nobody has addressed my comment beyond we will be fine. Why don’t you explain how you were able to read Adams his mind and come up with that very evil motive? What did you hear about things that she said which caused you to believe that she is so vindictive? Or are you just trying to discredit her to try and take the heat off of Hobbs? Inquiring trolls want to know.
Thanks John Kavanagh, for again providing me a chance to remind people that it’s the giving time of year!
Please donate in Representative John Kavanagh’s name to one of these fine organizations:
raicestexas.org – Providing free and low cost legal assistance to immigrants
aclu.org – Defending the Bill of Rights for over 100 years
plannedparenthood.org – Providing healthcare services for women and men for over 100 years
Remember to donate In Honor of Arizona State Representative John Kavanagh.
And John, you seem to have nothing better to do than troll and that worries me.
If you’re feeling alone, I understand this time of year can be difficult, you’re more than welcome to celebrate the holiday with us.
We have Mexican food on Christmas eve and a crab boil on Christmas day, in case you have any food allergies.
Maybe we can un-Scrooge your hate filled old ass while we celebrate the birth of the original immigrant anchor baby!
I did not address the first part of your ignorant comment because you are too ignorant to know what slander is. Slander is a spoken statement, libel is a written statement. Duh. Both are a subset of defamation. Defamation law will only consider statements defamatory if they are, in fact, false. A true statement is not considered defamation. Additionally, because of their nature, statements of opinion are not considered false because they are subjective to the speaker.
In this case, both Michael Bryan and I have quoted extensively from the trial record itself, which is factual. Mike’s questioning Adams’ motives is opinion, not a false statement of fact, as occurs in opinion pieces in the media in countless sources every day.
The 9th Circuit in 2014 held that bloggers have the same First Amendment privileges as institutional media. Cox v. Obsidian Finance Group, No. 12-35238 (9th Cir. 1/17/14), https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/01/17/12-35238.pdf
“Like the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers. But every other circuit to consider the issue has held that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan and its progeny apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers. (citations omitted).
We agree with our sister circuits. The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities … went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media . . . the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 352. In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue—not the identity of the speaker—provide the First Amendment touchstones.
We therefore hold that the Gertz negligence requirement for private defamation actions is not limited to cases with institutional media defendants.”
I should send you a bill at my billable rate for all this legal education that you are getting for free.
To bad for you that trolls don’t get fed here: they get schooled.
Proven liar and noted bigot John Kavanagh whining that no one will play with him.
I don’t think it deflection to point out that the chairman of the Government and Elections Committee made comments about how we only want “quality” voters to vote, and the other wacky, stupid, untrue, and insane things you have said, Johnny the Blog Jester.
If you are going to deflect because you can’t address the point that I raised, at least deflect with something relevant to the conversation. I feel really embarrassed for you.
Not deflecting, sport, just reminding the class that you are not an honest person.
If you’d have taken responsibilty for your misinformation (aka lies) in previous discussions we could consider your oh so very important thoughts.
But you don’t take any responsibilty for spreading lies, so no one here will take you seriously.
You’re just a crazy old man typing in the wind.
After you’ve been proven to be posting misinformation (aka lies) about damage from the BLM marches and about Biden’s vaccine/immigrant stand, you still comment here as if your words have any usefulness.
The lack of shame is astounding.
The words in my last post were Michael’s recounting Hobbs’ excuse.Nice try at deflection.
Since this post is still getting top billing when you open up the site, I thought I might comment on one more strange statement by Hobbs that Michael mentions. It is one of Hobbs stated reasons for supporting the, as the jury decided, retaliatory firing of Adams:
“You unprofessionally complained to the entire Democratic Caucus leadership about your pay, despite them having no control of that, and you having already been told how to make your allegations known through proper channels. [Katie Hobbs’ testimony, pages 17-20].”
So let me get this straight, Hobbs fired Adams because Adams had the gall to exercise her first amendment right to speak to other Democrat members of the caucus about what she believed was an injustice with regard to her pay. So Hobbs fires staff members who dare express their complaints to other Democrats in the caucus? Wow! We authoritarians Republicans never even thought of being that authoritarian. As a Republican, I have never been inside the basement offices of the minority party but based on this statement, I suspect it looks like some sort of slave ship galley. How often do you feed your staff? And after all these years, I erroneously thought that all that wailing inside the minority staff area was due to the bills that we Republicans were passing.
Replying to mbryanaz November 24, 2021 at 8:44 pm
If I ever meet JtBJ in real life I will introduce myself as Tom from Ahwatukee so he can put a face to his rage. Otherwise I don’t see the point beyond his threats.
His first thought would be “I didn’t expect Tom from Ahwatukee to be so dang handsome”.
And I’ll explain to him that I welcome a discussion about small and limited government, which may have some merits (not that he actually practices them), but that his policies have hurt real people and caused real families real pain, families meaning parents and their f’n children, all while stating that “God in in the chamber” or whatever.
Hence all the despising I do at him. And why I can’t take him seriously.
I know “Phony John”, while apt, wasn’t an inspired nickname for him. Johnny the Blog Jester aka JtBJ, is a big improvement.
And to Johnny the Blog Jester, it’s the Interwebs, if you know it’s going to upset you to start a fight with “the usual gang of blog readers” then don’t start a fight with them.
Unless masochism is your thing, in which case, I respect alternative lifestyles, so brave of you.
If you’re still reading, JtBJ, maybe I should go into psychiatry, because that means I may have a lucrative knack.
Sharpie (at 9:35PM), if you’re going to identify yourself to JtBJ may I make a suggestion? Go incognito in enrolling in his class & reveal yourself after you ace it. On second thought that may not be an ethical idea as JtBJ may get paranoid & take his ire out on an innocent class bystander.
I actually like Johnny the Blog Jester’s suggestion for his own quite apt sobriquet.
They can be buggy, but they generally work. In the main, if not the breach.
Threads not working, I was replying to Representative John Kavanagh November 24, 2021 at 4:47 pm with my comment Hiding in Plain Sight Sharpie November 24, 2021 at 8:25 pm.
Johnny’s probably talking about me.
He’s asked to “see my papers” before, because “irony” isn’t something he can grasp.
He would like to know who I am, I don’t see the point, if he can best me in the arena of ideas who cares who I am, but now he’s implying threats here, and as a former LEO he knows it.
What repercussions, John, would there be, if you knew my name IRL?
The only “repercussion” I’ve ever expressed against him is that I wish someone would run against him and win.
That’s democracy. America.
So please tell me, Phony John, what “repercussions” exactly?
What would happen?
BTW, Johnny, I was reading along and wasn’t going to comment while Michael took you apart, metaphorically, but then you brought us minions in the discussion.
You went looking for a fight, then you get mad when you get one. LOL.
Wow, you GQP folks talk about women being too emotional for higher office…
Michael, blaming Andy Biggs doesn’t appear to be working. I suggest you pull out the Democrat nuclear weapon and blame Trump.
Time will tell, Johnny. Time will tell.
Heh. ‘Democrat nuclear weapon’… that’s actually witty. I knew there was a reason to keep you around…
Call me the Jester,
Very well. You get that everyone? Johnny shall henceforth be referred to as Johnny the Blog Jester.
That works.
You are an anonymous blogger which means you don’t have the guts to associate yourself with what you say and you don’t have to worry about any repercussions, if you say stupid things. What you say with anonymity has little worth and is akin to the graffiti inside a bathroom stall.
I wonder if you would be defending Michael’s position, which is trashing what even he calls a victim, were your name attached to it.
Given the death threats that have become too common from your team, I would say anonymity is actually the soul of prudence right now. You’ll need to do better to get under (umm not entirely clear who you are reacting to… I’m gonna guess… ) Sharpie’s (?) skin, Johnny.
Johnny, if you are reacting to a particular comment, click the little Reply next to the comment date and time and it will thread your comment. Just posting a new comment thread is confusing.
You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, you cannot say that you are glad Talonya won the lawsuit and that she is a victim, while at the same time digging through all of Secretary Hobbs’ courtroom testimony to dredge up and tell everyone that she was unprofessional and an embarrassment to herself, the implication being that Hobbs was right in deciding to fire her. And yes, Hobbs did fire her because as Lauri Roberts of the Arizona Republic wrote:
“But it’s clear, from trial testimony, that Hobbs was the key figure in Adams’ firing. Hobbs testified that it was a “group decision” and after the verdict her campaign issued a statement saying the Republican chief of staff was the “ultimate decision-maker.” But the Republican and Democratic chiefs of staff made it clear on the witness stand that it was Hobbs’ call.”
I REPEAT, “But the Republican and Democratic chiefs of staff made it clear on the witness stand that it was Hobbs’ call.” So are you and Hobbs calling the Democrat Chief of Staff a liar and perjurer? ALERT: If you answer this one, you will be digging your blogger grave deeper, so evade answering it, as you usually do.
Hobbs and you keep digging your graves deeper as you try to have it both ways and twist the facts, which in many ways is re-victimizing Talonya. You really should be ashamed.
Finally, regarding your statement, “The idea that you are a spokesman for what my readers want to know if risible,” you got me on one count, I had to look up the definition of risible. However, have you noticed that the usual gang of blog readers who instantaneously attack my comments and me are AWOL on this topic. I suspect that they realize that you’re on the wrong side of this issue and don’t want to jump into the grave with you and I don’t blame them.
I can’t? I suppose I’ll have to make sure to check with you that my views are sufficiently unsubtle for you to approve of before I publish anything in the future, John. In any case, if by “both ways” you mean I can’t hold the opinion that she was both wronged by the sexually discriminatory pay set by the Republican Senate caucus, and that Hobbs had grounds to fire her that would have caused most people to consider her termination, then you are obviously wrong, because that IS my view. If you don’t comprehend that I can hold two separate thoughts in my head at once, then I guess that’s says more about you than me.
I’ve never denied that Secretary Hobbs had a role in deciding to fire Ms. Adams. Where do you get the idea that I deny that?
As to ‘re-victimizing’ Ms Adams, (with whom you now appear to be on a first name basis?) I leave the shame to those who victimized her in the first place: The Republican Senate caucus and Senate President Biggs.
As to my “gang” who attack your comments, I think it is important to note that we at BlogForArizona tolerate and welcome the comments of even the most bad faith commenters, like Johnny here, for a couple reasons: We do not fear or flee from intellectual confrontation with those who disagree with us; we know we have the superior and rational positions and are willing to defend them in open discussion. We demonstrate intellectual honesty and commitment to democratic dialog and self-governance by allowing those who disagree to have a say (provided their say is civilized debate and not mere name-calling and threats – such are removed).
This is in stark contrast to our – I hesitate to even use the word – ‘counterparts’ on the radical right of the political spectrum here in Arizona. Most forums for so-called conservative opinion are foreclosed to me. I can’t even post comments on the fascistic-leaning forums based here in Arizona: they are too afraid to debate me openly, so they merely block me. Cowards. I will give John this, at least he’s not a coward. A poor liar and inept propagandist, certainly, but at least he’s not a poltroon, like so many of his ilk.
You say, “..by allowing those who disagree to have a say (provided their say is civilized debate and not mere name-calling and threats – such are removed).” Perhaps the BfA blog master would consider applying the name-calling ban to those who he or she agrees with, like AZBlueMeanie, you and many of the anonymous blog commentators. You know, kind of a goose and gander thing.
I said “mere” name-calling. I enjoy a good insult as much as the next guy, it’s just not a suitable basis for a debate by itself. You really don’t want to be a kill-joy, do you, Johnny?
John Kavanagh said “However, have you noticed that the usual gang of blog readers who instantaneously attack my comments and me are AWOL on this topic.”
John, do you think we all actually live inside the internet, awaiting your comments? =
Anyway, those of us keeping score at home could see Michael Bryan doing just fine and didn’t see the need to pile on.
We pity you.
Say you: “You can be both a victim and misguided and confused as to who victimized you.” but that is not what you said nor is it anything I addressed in my post..
YOU attacked her by repeating Hobbs’s attack on her, that she was an embarrassment and unprofessional. You cannot walk away from that attack on the victim. You can either address it or recant and apologize to Talonya. Which do you want to do? Do you regret digging up and publishing what Hobbs’s said about her being unprofessional and an embarrassment or do you recant? Your readers want to know.
That’s not an ‘attack’: it’s a statement of facts given in court under oath. I didn’t “dig anything up”, its a matter of public record in the case files. The idea that you are a spokesman for what my readers want to know if risible. Good try, John. If you were half as clever as you believe yourself to be, you might be interesting.
You glad she won her case???? Are you serious? You just posted the following about Talonya IN THIS POST:
“Secretary Hobbs was very clear about the reasons she, and Senate Republican chief of staff Wendy Baldo, and Democratic chief of staff Jeff Winkler, all agreed that they needed to fire you:
you embarrassed yourself, your colleague Ms. Lisette Flores, and the Democratic Caucus members and staff when you acted in a manner that was “belligerent, aggressive, and just unprofessional”, by “demeaning” Ms. Flores at a meeting in front of the entire caucus, because she got the job you wanted; [Katie Hobbs’ testimony pages 15-16];
you unprofessionally missed work (forcing staff to re-assign your unfinished assignments) without notifying any Members or your supervisor that you had to be absent due to a medical emergency of your adult son, and; [Katie Hobbs’ testimony, pages 20-21];
you unprofessionally complained to the entire Democratic Caucus leadership about your pay, despite them having no control of that, and you having already been told how to make your allegations known through proper channels. [Katie Hobbs’ testimony, pages 17-20].”
If you believe Hobbs is telling the truth, then why are you glad that Talonya won the case because obviously there were just grounds to fire her? Of course to be intellectually consistent you need to hold the opinion, if you want to be glad she won the case, that Hobbs is lying through her teeth. So which is it? Is Talonya a bad employee deserving of termination or is she the victim of discrimination in your opinion? Or are you schizophrenic and believe both are true?
I think the parable “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” is appropriate for what you’re doing. Your continuing comments are digging your grave deeper, much like Katie Hobbs’s comments.
Boy, you really don’t pay attention or you are intentionally acting dense.
She was discriminated against in her disparate pay. She deserved to win on that point.
The reasons she was fired were valid, but the court held that given the lack of any structure for discipline and termination (which YOUR CAUCUS failed to establish) that her termination was essentially an arbitrary decision.
There is NO contradiction here except for your own faulty reasoning.
I’m rather glad that you are here trying to cause some trouble, John: your guileful rhetoric and twisted reasoning illustrates clearly the bad faith and utter lack of principles of those who set the up the discriminatory pay and conditions of employment that Ms. Adams rightly complained of.
Andy Biggs is a bigger liar than even you are. It is he, and those in your caucus, that caused the harm to Ms. Adams of which she rightly complained. And she was rightly compensated for the harm that Biggs and the Republicans did. What I criticize her for is that she is focusing her ire at the wrong persons: she should be angry with the Republican caucus who harmed her, not the person who fired her for clearly stated job performance reasons.
It wasn’t just about disparate pay. If I may refresh your mind as to what the judge said, as reported in the Capitol Times:
“Rayes said there was sufficient evidence for a jury to accept Adams’ arguments about the complaints she made. And that, the judge said, precludes him from second-guessing the decision by jurors that she was not just the victim of discrimination — what the first jury concluded in 2019 — but that her firing was retaliation for complaining.”
Then lets look at the New Times coverage:
“For the second time in as many years, a jury has awarded a major victory to legislative staffer Talonya Adams in her damning discrimination case against the Arizona Senate.
In 2015, Democratic Senate leadership fired Adams, a Black woman, from her job as a policy advisor. She argues that her termination was retaliation for speaking out against the discrimination she faced in the workplace, where she was paid far lower than her white male colleagues.
A jury agreed, awarding Adams a towering $2.75 million in damages, on Wednesday.”
So Hobbs seems to have been involved in RETALIATION against someone who complained about disparate pay, according to the jury and Hobbs who said that the dismissal was a group decision.
So as you said Michael, “Boy, you really don’t pay attention or you are intentionally acting dense.”
Keep digging Michael.
That “seems” is carrying a really heavy load there, Johnny the Blog Jester. We will be publishing a more in-depth legal analysis that will put these issues to rest. Rest assured, Johnny: Andy Biggs is the villain here. He is responsible for EVERYTHING that Ms. Adams complained of.
The Talonya Adams case underscores the need for the Equal Rights Amendment. The ERA states: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
The Adams case revealed widespread wage discrimination in the Arizona Legislature, based upon sex, as Rep. John Kavanagh alludes to above. I applaud Adams for having the nerve to sue the state of Arizona for pay discrimination. Is it a surprise to anyone that the Republican Majority set up a system of that discriminates against women? Look at how poorly women Legislators are treated by the Republican Majority in the Legislature.
After the Adams case, the Yellow Sheet reported many sex discrimination examples when they compared salaries of male Republican staffers and female Democratic staffers. When I joined the Arizona House in 2017, I was told that the Democrats get fewer staff members than the Republicans and that the Democratic staff are paid less than Republican staff. Period. It’s an unfair system. A system that was set up to punish the minority party turned out to discriminate against women also. Some female Democratic staff members received thousands of dollars in pay raises because they were being discriminated against by the Republican Majority who sets the salaries and makes the ultimate hiring and firing decisions.
I’m glad she won her case. I am confused and surprised the she targets for blame the minority party, which had no control of the matter. I find it vindictive and suspiciously timed that she would target all her criticism on Secretary Hobbs.
Totally agree as to the dire need of the ERA. Women have waited far too long to be treated as complete equals under our supreme law.
Jeez, Mike, how’d ya get to be so cynical and all, living in AZ?
Oh, I don’t know… could be dealing with chaps like JK here…
Thank you, Michael, for giving us Katie Hobbs’ side to the story.
The AZ Republic panned her and so did the DGT speaker.
This is not Secretary Hobbs’ side of the story. I did read her press statements, but this is not in any way her views. It is my view after reading the case myself and consulting with a labor law subject matter expert. And common sense. Too little of which has been brought to bear on the matter by the media, or Secretary Hobbs’ political rivals, or the leadership of the Democratic Party in Arizona.
Well written and explained. Thank you.
First, let me compliment you on being the only blogger on this site to actually address this issue, albeit somewhat late. I have only two comments to make.
First, Hobbs bumbling response to this incident, and bumbling is the word used by Lori Roberts of the Arizona Republic in a quite fitting manner, demonstrates the wisdom of the old political adage that the cover-up is often worse than the crime.
Second, if you intend on blaming Andy Biggs for the pay disparity between House Republican and Democrat staff in the Senate, then doesn’t House Minority Leader Reginald Bolding also share blame for not publicly protesting the pay disparity in the House, assuming it is there also, which is my understanding?
Late, because we actually read and analyzed the case record before shooting our mouths off, John. Unlike many.
As to Reginald complaining to Biggs, yeah, I’m sure that would have fixed everything! Why didn’t I think of that? Biggs would have immediately recognized his ‘oversight’ and rectified the situation straight away! How stupid and naive do you believe our readers to be, John? Clearly, you think them the intellectual equal of the mouth breathers you pander to with lies and disinformation every day.
You missed my point. It was that because Democrat leaders (like Bolding) and members (like Powers Hannley see above) knew of the pay differentials between Rs and Ds for some time, why do they now get a pass for keeping quiet about it. This was taking place right under there noses.
Hobbs clearly is guilty of more than knowing and doing nothing, but there is still plenty of blame to go around. After all, all former legislators, including many of Hobbs’s loudest critics knew about this. Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H-PS_pr-t0
Talk about blaming the victim! The Democratic caucus could do nothing about the issue, and complaining about it is about the definition of ‘inside baseball’ that most voters would not care about. You arguments only remind people that you and your caucus are salivating at the prospect of blaming Secretary Hobbs for the sexism that is practically the calling card of your party.
You need to keep track of which side of your mouth you’re talking out of. First you call Talonya a victim and Hobbs also said she wished that she had been a better ally. But then you trash Talonya, when you say in your post:
“Secretary Hobbs was very clear about the reasons she, and Senate Republican chief of staff Wendy Baldo, and Democratic chief of staff Jeff Winkler, all agreed that they needed to fire you:
-you embarrassed yourself, your colleague Ms. Lisette Flores, and the Democratic Caucus members and staff when you acted in a manner that was “belligerent, aggressive, and just unprofessional”, by “demeaning” Ms. Flores at a meeting in front of the entire caucus, because she got the job you wanted; [Katie Hobbs’ testimony pages 15-16];
-you unprofessionally missed work (forcing staff to re-assign your unfinished assignments) without notifying any Members or your supervisor that you had to be absent due to a medical emergency of your adult son, and; [Katie Hobbs’ testimony, pages 20-21];
-you unprofessionally complained to the entire Democratic Caucus leadership about your pay, despite them having no control of that, and you having already been told how to make your allegations known through proper channels. [Katie Hobbs’ testimony, pages 17-20].”
Now that’s blaming the victim on steroids!!!
Then you double down on stupid and say, “The Democratic caucus could do nothing about the issue, and complaining about it is about the definition of ‘inside baseball’ that most voters would not care about.” Well if it’s senseless for Democrats to complain about things they have no control over, then why are they always trashing Republican bills on the floor whose passage they cannot stop. Is it really a Democrat principle that you should stay silent about discrimination, if you can’t stop it? Isn’t that “inside baseball” too or is it only “inside baseball” when the attacks are against somebody that you support for Secretary of State or, at least, someone that you think has the best chance of winning as a Democrat?
If, you, on the one hand are going to portray Talonya as a victim and on the other hand as an unprofessional, embarrassing employee, at least don’t do it in the same post!!!
You can be both a victim and misguided and confused as to who victimized you. You can also be a victim and go on to victimize others. Nothing about being the victim of a wrong automatically makes you above reproach.
Your criticisms are nonsense, John, as is your political philosophy. You seem to think that pay discrimination is only wrong if the Democrats are baying about it. Your party is in control of the Senate (for now…), it’s on YOU and your members for having created this problem, and as long as your party has the gavel, it’s on you to fix this problem. It doesn’t lessen your culpability or make what you have done to women working at the Capital less discriminatory because Democrats didn’t complain loudly enough.
I do not ‘miss your point’ at all, John, I reject it as the bullpucky it is. Much different.
Micheal Bryan, bravely trying to reason with the internet version of a telemarketer.
@Sharpie-you have unfairly slandered telemarketers with your comparison.