CAIR bringing case against MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

No, it's not. You can continue repeating lies, but nobody outside your echo chamber cares how badly you distort the meaning of the phrase.

why is it people what think Israel has no right to exist think it isn’t a call to destroy Israel . If you don’t think Israel has a right to exist you want it gone .

You don’t understand what rights are as they relate to nation states. No, the State of Israel has no “right” to exist just as the United States of America has no “right” to exist.

Individuals have inalienable rights.

Did the Roman Empire have rights? Ottoman Empire? Of course not.

What you should be asking of others is whether individuals calling the State of Israel home have rights, and the answer is an emphatic yes. Just like everyone else, but no more or less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

No it isn’t. That is your interpretation

It is the position of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

No it is not. Only according to supporters of Israel.

It’s literally in the Hamas charter.

It’s going to come down to two things:

1. Is there a violation of the code of conduct
2. Is there selective enforcement of that code.


We don’t have all the facts here. I think the answer to (1) is “no,” but it’s subjective and potentially problematic. If the answer to (2) is “yes,” then MCPS violated EEO laws.

I don’t mean at all to get into politics here. What follows is meant to explain how complicated our own evaluation of this situation can be.

As for the Hamas charter, we should all agree that the goal is there to eliminate Israel. Maybe that is part of the criteria for evaluating (1). However, we must be very careful with that kind of evaluation. After all, Israel’s nation-state law “ establishes ‘Jewish settlement as a national value’ and mandates that the state ‘will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.’” (Source: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy) In other words, settlements are important to the state, and the state will support them. That also means stealing additional land as an official practice and is very close to the Hamas position.

Do we want to say one of these is right and one is wrong? MCPS can’t do that, and so I don’t think MCPS should use either position in its evaluation of the teacher adherence to the code of conduct.

There is one weakness in the bolded, and CAIR knows it because they addressed it in the complaint.

It is not an EEO violation to have selective enforcement of a restriction on speech. (It may violate other things, obviously, such as....the First Amendment)
The selective enforcement needs to be due to a protected characteristic of the individual- NOT based on the content of the speech.
CAIR knew this and made this assertion in the complaint: "Ms. El-Haggan’s views on Palestinian rights are intrinsically tied to her identity as a Muslim of Egyptian and Sudanese national origin."

To me that is the biggest weakness. That is going to be hard to prove. And it would mean that somebody without a national origin in a predominantly Muslin country would NOT be protected if they said the same thing. That seems like a bad outcome.

I wrote the statement you quoted.

That’s a good point, and I kind of assumed it. The protected classes in Maryland are as follows:

Race
Color
Religion
Sex
Age
National origin
Marital status
Gender Identity
Genetic information, or refusal to submit to a genetic test
Sexual orientation
Disability unrelated in nature and extent to the performance of the employment

I think race, religion, national origin, and maybe color are the most relevant here. Note that an EEO violation doesn’t need to be against perfect discrimination. That is, the effect is what is important. So if the policy is only enforced against those who hold a political or moral belief, one might at first think this is not an EEO violation because none of those are protected classes. However, if the effect is that a disproportionate number of any of the protected classes are affected, then the action can be deemed to be against that protected class. For example, if I make a policy and enforce it against people who are over a certain height, say, 6’ tall, that policy could be a gender-biased policy because it disproportionately affect—and thus targets—men, and gender is a protected class. So, here , one could argue that the policy is only enforced against those who make statements against Israel, and since that may affect Muslims, Arabs, etc., disproportionately, it could still be against national origin or religion.

PP here. I get all that.

But you agree that there would be no EEO claim if this teacher were of, say, Swedish origin and engaged in the exact same conduct?

You understand that there are Swedish Muslims don’t you? And Jews. And people of color.

Yes, I do get that.

Please forgive me for not being explicit: The teacher here has a (potentially weak) claim because of her national origin and her religion. The written complaint referenced her national origin as the possible basis of the claim, so that is why I only referenced national origin in my hypothetical. Apologies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

Does Israel have

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

Well that’s debatable. Many Palestinians claim its a call for equality and fairness throughout the state of Israel.

It’s not debatable, that’s what it means regardless of ignorance by those who use it. Probably not of legal concern, but BLM is a positive reference for a particular group, it calls for support, the other calls for a destruction of a people.

You can’t just hijack a phrase and tell
people, no it doesn’t mean what you say, it means what I say. You don’t get to do that. Also, Isreal is calling for the destruction of Gaza and now says there can be no two state solution. So in fact being Pro Israeli is supporting terrorism and makes Muslim children feel unsafe in school. See how interpretation can be turned around?

+1000. I am Palestinian and I am literally telling people to stop hijacking the phrase and people who aren’t Palestinian love to gaslight and tell us what our phrases mean or don’t mean. Personally I don’t use the phrase because it has been completely hijacked and it’s not the battle I’m going to fight when there are other more important things, but it’s become out of control.

Does Israel have a right to exist? Now tell me how from the river to the sea isn’t a call for the destruction of Israel?

To your first question: No, not in the sense of how people have rights.
To your second question: "Destruction" is the wrong term. If you mean that the phrase *could* mean that the world should not formally recognize the Israeli nation (a political construct) as controlling of all that land, then yes it means that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

No it isn’t. That is your interpretation

It is the position of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

No it is not. Only according to supporters of Israel.

It’s literally in the Hamas charter.

It’s going to come down to two things:

1. Is there a violation of the code of conduct
2. Is there selective enforcement of that code.


We don’t have all the facts here. I think the answer to (1) is “no,” but it’s subjective and potentially problematic. If the answer to (2) is “yes,” then MCPS violated EEO laws.

I don’t mean at all to get into politics here. What follows is meant to explain how complicated our own evaluation of this situation can be.

As for the Hamas charter, we should all agree that the goal is there to eliminate Israel. Maybe that is part of the criteria for evaluating (1). However, we must be very careful with that kind of evaluation. After all, Israel’s nation-state law “ establishes ‘Jewish settlement as a national value’ and mandates that the state ‘will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.’” (Source: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy) In other words, settlements are important to the state, and the state will support them. That also means stealing additional land as an official practice and is very close to the Hamas position.

Do we want to say one of these is right and one is wrong? MCPS can’t do that, and so I don’t think MCPS should use either position in its evaluation of the teacher adherence to the code of conduct.

There is one weakness in the bolded, and CAIR knows it because they addressed it in the complaint.

It is not an EEO violation to have selective enforcement of a restriction on speech. (It may violate other things, obviously, such as....the First Amendment)
The selective enforcement needs to be due to a protected characteristic of the individual- NOT based on the content of the speech.
CAIR knew this and made this assertion in the complaint: "Ms. El-Haggan’s views on Palestinian rights are intrinsically tied to her identity as a Muslim of Egyptian and Sudanese national origin."

To me that is the biggest weakness. That is going to be hard to prove. And it would mean that somebody without a national origin in a predominantly Muslin country would NOT be protected if they said the same thing. That seems like a bad outcome.

I wrote the statement you quoted.

That’s a good point, and I kind of assumed it. The protected classes in Maryland are as follows:

Race
Color
Religion
Sex
Age
National origin
Marital status
Gender Identity
Genetic information, or refusal to submit to a genetic test
Sexual orientation
Disability unrelated in nature and extent to the performance of the employment

I think race, religion, national origin, and maybe color are the most relevant here. Note that an EEO violation doesn’t need to be against perfect discrimination. That is, the effect is what is important. So if the policy is only enforced against those who hold a political or moral belief, one might at first think this is not an EEO violation because none of those are protected classes. However, if the effect is that a disproportionate number of any of the protected classes are affected, then the action can be deemed to be against that protected class. For example, if I make a policy and enforce it against people who are over a certain height, say, 6’ tall, that policy could be a gender-biased policy because it disproportionately affect—and thus targets—men, and gender is a protected class. So, here , one could argue that the policy is only enforced against those who make statements against Israel, and since that may affect Muslims, Arabs, etc., disproportionately, it could still be against national origin or religion.

PP here. I get all that.

But you agree that there would be no EEO claim if this teacher were of, say, Swedish origin and engaged in the exact same conduct?

Maybe, but what if the Swedish person converted to Islam?

OK, so Swedish atheist.

No EEO claim, right?

Yes and no. No claim by that person, but a claim by the affected class

Which class?

An atheist woman of Swedish national origin who engaged in identical conduct would file as a representative of which class?

And a suit filed by a representative of a protected class that was successful a year from now would not protect this hypothetical Swedish atheist person, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

No it isn’t. That is your interpretation

It is the position of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

No it is not. Only according to supporters of Israel.

It’s literally in the Hamas charter.

It’s going to come down to two things:

1. Is there a violation of the code of conduct
2. Is there selective enforcement of that code.


We don’t have all the facts here. I think the answer to (1) is “no,” but it’s subjective and potentially problematic. If the answer to (2) is “yes,” then MCPS violated EEO laws.

I don’t mean at all to get into politics here. What follows is meant to explain how complicated our own evaluation of this situation can be.

As for the Hamas charter, we should all agree that the goal is there to eliminate Israel. Maybe that is part of the criteria for evaluating (1). However, we must be very careful with that kind of evaluation. After all, Israel’s nation-state law “ establishes ‘Jewish settlement as a national value’ and mandates that the state ‘will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.’” (Source: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy) In other words, settlements are important to the state, and the state will support them. That also means stealing additional land as an official practice and is very close to the Hamas position.

Do we want to say one of these is right and one is wrong? MCPS can’t do that, and so I don’t think MCPS should use either position in its evaluation of the teacher adherence to the code of conduct.

There is one weakness in the bolded, and CAIR knows it because they addressed it in the complaint.

It is not an EEO violation to have selective enforcement of a restriction on speech. (It may violate other things, obviously, such as....the First Amendment)
The selective enforcement needs to be due to a protected characteristic of the individual- NOT based on the content of the speech.
CAIR knew this and made this assertion in the complaint: "Ms. El-Haggan’s views on Palestinian rights are intrinsically tied to her identity as a Muslim of Egyptian and Sudanese national origin."

To me that is the biggest weakness. That is going to be hard to prove. And it would mean that somebody without a national origin in a predominantly Muslin country would NOT be protected if they said the same thing. That seems like a bad outcome.

I wrote the statement you quoted.

That’s a good point, and I kind of assumed it. The protected classes in Maryland are as follows:

Race
Color
Religion
Sex
Age
National origin
Marital status
Gender Identity
Genetic information, or refusal to submit to a genetic test
Sexual orientation
Disability unrelated in nature and extent to the performance of the employment

I think race, religion, national origin, and maybe color are the most relevant here. Note that an EEO violation doesn’t need to be against perfect discrimination. That is, the effect is what is important. So if the policy is only enforced against those who hold a political or moral belief, one might at first think this is not an EEO violation because none of those are protected classes. However, if the effect is that a disproportionate number of any of the protected classes are affected, then the action can be deemed to be against that protected class. For example, if I make a policy and enforce it against people who are over a certain height, say, 6’ tall, that policy could be a gender-biased policy because it disproportionately affect—and thus targets—men, and gender is a protected class. So, here , one could argue that the policy is only enforced against those who make statements against Israel, and since that may affect Muslims, Arabs, etc., disproportionately, it could still be against national origin or religion.

PP here. I get all that.

But you agree that there would be no EEO claim if this teacher were of, say, Swedish origin and engaged in the exact same conduct?

Maybe, but what if the Swedish person converted to Islam?

OK, so Swedish atheist.

No EEO claim, right?

Yes and no. No claim by that person, but a claim by the affected class

Which class?

An atheist woman of Swedish national origin who engaged in identical conduct would file as a representative of which class?

And a suit filed by a representative of a protected class that was successful a year from now would not protect this hypothetical Swedish atheist person, right?

The affected class would be any Muslim or Arab. It would make the policy enforcement itself discriminatory. Personally, the best remedy is to mandate exactly what can be on an official email signature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

No it isn’t. That is your interpretation

It is the position of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

No it is not. Only according to supporters of Israel.

It’s literally in the Hamas charter.

It’s going to come down to two things:

1. Is there a violation of the code of conduct
2. Is there selective enforcement of that code.


We don’t have all the facts here. I think the answer to (1) is “no,” but it’s subjective and potentially problematic. If the answer to (2) is “yes,” then MCPS violated EEO laws.

I don’t mean at all to get into politics here. What follows is meant to explain how complicated our own evaluation of this situation can be.

As for the Hamas charter, we should all agree that the goal is there to eliminate Israel. Maybe that is part of the criteria for evaluating (1). However, we must be very careful with that kind of evaluation. After all, Israel’s nation-state law “ establishes ‘Jewish settlement as a national value’ and mandates that the state ‘will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.’” (Source: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy) In other words, settlements are important to the state, and the state will support them. That also means stealing additional land as an official practice and is very close to the Hamas position.

Do we want to say one of these is right and one is wrong? MCPS can’t do that, and so I don’t think MCPS should use either position in its evaluation of the teacher adherence to the code of conduct.

There is one weakness in the bolded, and CAIR knows it because they addressed it in the complaint.

It is not an EEO violation to have selective enforcement of a restriction on speech. (It may violate other things, obviously, such as....the First Amendment)
The selective enforcement needs to be due to a protected characteristic of the individual- NOT based on the content of the speech.
CAIR knew this and made this assertion in the complaint: "Ms. El-Haggan’s views on Palestinian rights are intrinsically tied to her identity as a Muslim of Egyptian and Sudanese national origin."

To me that is the biggest weakness. That is going to be hard to prove. And it would mean that somebody without a national origin in a predominantly Muslin country would NOT be protected if they said the same thing. That seems like a bad outcome.

I wrote the statement you quoted.

That’s a good point, and I kind of assumed it. The protected classes in Maryland are as follows:

Race
Color
Religion
Sex
Age
National origin
Marital status
Gender Identity
Genetic information, or refusal to submit to a genetic test
Sexual orientation
Disability unrelated in nature and extent to the performance of the employment

I think race, religion, national origin, and maybe color are the most relevant here. Note that an EEO violation doesn’t need to be against perfect discrimination. That is, the effect is what is important. So if the policy is only enforced against those who hold a political or moral belief, one might at first think this is not an EEO violation because none of those are protected classes. However, if the effect is that a disproportionate number of any of the protected classes are affected, then the action can be deemed to be against that protected class. For example, if I make a policy and enforce it against people who are over a certain height, say, 6’ tall, that policy could be a gender-biased policy because it disproportionately affect—and thus targets—men, and gender is a protected class. So, here , one could argue that the policy is only enforced against those who make statements against Israel, and since that may affect Muslims, Arabs, etc., disproportionately, it could still be against national origin or religion.

PP here. I get all that.

But you agree that there would be no EEO claim if this teacher were of, say, Swedish origin and engaged in the exact same conduct?

Maybe, but what if the Swedish person converted to Islam?

OK, so Swedish atheist.

No EEO claim, right?

Yes and no. No claim by that person, but a claim by the affected class

Which class?

An atheist woman of Swedish national origin who engaged in identical conduct would file as a representative of which class?

And a suit filed by a representative of a protected class that was successful a year from now would not protect this hypothetical Swedish atheist person, right?

The affected class would be any Muslim or Arab. It would make the policy enforcement itself discriminatory. Personally, the best remedy is to mandate exactly what can be on an official email signature.

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue about the substance here, and IK agree with you on ideal policy.

But I am intrigued by the legal aspect. True that there could theoretically be a class claim if there was evidence of a disparate impact.
But it is true that on the facts here, if you swap out the national origin and religion of the person, there would be no valid claim. So it really isn't about protected speech at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

No it isn’t. That is your interpretation

It is the position of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

No it is not. Only according to supporters of Israel.

It’s literally in the Hamas charter.

It’s going to come down to two things:

1. Is there a violation of the code of conduct
2. Is there selective enforcement of that code.


We don’t have all the facts here. I think the answer to (1) is “no,” but it’s subjective and potentially problematic. If the answer to (2) is “yes,” then MCPS violated EEO laws.

I don’t mean at all to get into politics here. What follows is meant to explain how complicated our own evaluation of this situation can be.

As for the Hamas charter, we should all agree that the goal is there to eliminate Israel. Maybe that is part of the criteria for evaluating (1). However, we must be very careful with that kind of evaluation. After all, Israel’s nation-state law “ establishes ‘Jewish settlement as a national value’ and mandates that the state ‘will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.’” (Source: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy) In other words, settlements are important to the state, and the state will support them. That also means stealing additional land as an official practice and is very close to the Hamas position.

Do we want to say one of these is right and one is wrong? MCPS can’t do that, and so I don’t think MCPS should use either position in its evaluation of the teacher adherence to the code of conduct.

There is one weakness in the bolded, and CAIR knows it because they addressed it in the complaint.

It is not an EEO violation to have selective enforcement of a restriction on speech. (It may violate other things, obviously, such as....the First Amendment)
The selective enforcement needs to be due to a protected characteristic of the individual- NOT based on the content of the speech.
CAIR knew this and made this assertion in the complaint: "Ms. El-Haggan’s views on Palestinian rights are intrinsically tied to her identity as a Muslim of Egyptian and Sudanese national origin."

To me that is the biggest weakness. That is going to be hard to prove. And it would mean that somebody without a national origin in a predominantly Muslin country would NOT be protected if they said the same thing. That seems like a bad outcome.

I wrote the statement you quoted.

That’s a good point, and I kind of assumed it. The protected classes in Maryland are as follows:

Race
Color
Religion
Sex
Age
National origin
Marital status
Gender Identity
Genetic information, or refusal to submit to a genetic test
Sexual orientation
Disability unrelated in nature and extent to the performance of the employment

I think race, religion, national origin, and maybe color are the most relevant here. Note that an EEO violation doesn’t need to be against perfect discrimination. That is, the effect is what is important. So if the policy is only enforced against those who hold a political or moral belief, one might at first think this is not an EEO violation because none of those are protected classes. However, if the effect is that a disproportionate number of any of the protected classes are affected, then the action can be deemed to be against that protected class. For example, if I make a policy and enforce it against people who are over a certain height, say, 6’ tall, that policy could be a gender-biased policy because it disproportionately affect—and thus targets—men, and gender is a protected class. So, here , one could argue that the policy is only enforced against those who make statements against Israel, and since that may affect Muslims, Arabs, etc., disproportionately, it could still be against national origin or religion.

PP here. I get all that.

But you agree that there would be no EEO claim if this teacher were of, say, Swedish origin and engaged in the exact same conduct?

Maybe, but what if the Swedish person converted to Islam?

OK, so Swedish atheist.

No EEO claim, right?

Yes and no. No claim by that person, but a claim by the affected class

Which class?

An atheist woman of Swedish national origin who engaged in identical conduct would file as a representative of which class?

And a suit filed by a representative of a protected class that was successful a year from now would not protect this hypothetical Swedish atheist person, right?

The affected class would be any Muslim or Arab. It would make the policy enforcement itself discriminatory. Personally, the best remedy is to mandate exactly what can be on an official email signature.

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue about the substance here, and IK agree with you on ideal policy.

But I am intrigued by the legal aspect. True that there could theoretically be a class claim if there was evidence of a disparate impact.
But it is true that on the facts here, if you swap out the national origin and religion of the person, there would be no valid claim. So it really isn't about protected speech at all.

That’s how a lot of large-scale discrimination cases work. The offending body creates a policy that only indirectly targets a protected group. Anybody in that protected group can file a suit for relief. I believe this is also how the “Trump Muslim Ban” case worked as well. The government was allowed to create rules about countries of origin, but it effectively became about religion instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

Does Israel have

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

Well that’s debatable. Many Palestinians claim its a call for equality and fairness throughout the state of Israel.

It’s not debatable, that’s what it means regardless of ignorance by those who use it. Probably not of legal concern, but BLM is a positive reference for a particular group, it calls for support, the other calls for a destruction of a people.

You can’t just hijack a phrase and tell
people, no it doesn’t mean what you say, it means what I say. You don’t get to do that. Also, Isreal is calling for the destruction of Gaza and now says there can be no two state solution. So in fact being Pro Israeli is supporting terrorism and makes Muslim children feel unsafe in school. See how interpretation can be turned around?

+1000. I am Palestinian and I am literally telling people to stop hijacking the phrase and people who aren’t Palestinian love to gaslight and tell us what our phrases mean or don’t mean. Personally I don’t use the phrase because it has been completely hijacked and it’s not the battle I’m going to fight when there are other more important things, but it’s become out of control.

Does Israel have a right to exist? Now tell me how from the river to the sea isn’t a call for the destruction of Israel?

DP here. The full phrase is “from the river to the sea, Palestinians will be free”. How can you not understand that is about liberty? Especially when the people who use it tell you so? It’s predates Hamas by decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

No it isn’t. That is your interpretation

It is the position of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

No it is not. Only according to supporters of Israel.

It’s literally in the Hamas charter.

It’s going to come down to two things:

1. Is there a violation of the code of conduct
2. Is there selective enforcement of that code.


We don’t have all the facts here. I think the answer to (1) is “no,” but it’s subjective and potentially problematic. If the answer to (2) is “yes,” then MCPS violated EEO laws.

I don’t mean at all to get into politics here. What follows is meant to explain how complicated our own evaluation of this situation can be.

As for the Hamas charter, we should all agree that the goal is there to eliminate Israel. Maybe that is part of the criteria for evaluating (1). However, we must be very careful with that kind of evaluation. After all, Israel’s nation-state law “ establishes ‘Jewish settlement as a national value’ and mandates that the state ‘will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.’” (Source: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy) In other words, settlements are important to the state, and the state will support them. That also means stealing additional land as an official practice and is very close to the Hamas position.

Do we want to say one of these is right and one is wrong? MCPS can’t do that, and so I don’t think MCPS should use either position in its evaluation of the teacher adherence to the code of conduct.

There is one weakness in the bolded, and CAIR knows it because they addressed it in the complaint.

It is not an EEO violation to have selective enforcement of a restriction on speech. (It may violate other things, obviously, such as....the First Amendment)
The selective enforcement needs to be due to a protected characteristic of the individual- NOT based on the content of the speech.
CAIR knew this and made this assertion in the complaint: "Ms. El-Haggan’s views on Palestinian rights are intrinsically tied to her identity as a Muslim of Egyptian and Sudanese national origin."

To me that is the biggest weakness. That is going to be hard to prove. And it would mean that somebody without a national origin in a predominantly Muslin country would NOT be protected if they said the same thing. That seems like a bad outcome.

I wrote the statement you quoted.

That’s a good point, and I kind of assumed it. The protected classes in Maryland are as follows:

Race
Color
Religion
Sex
Age
National origin
Marital status
Gender Identity
Genetic information, or refusal to submit to a genetic test
Sexual orientation
Disability unrelated in nature and extent to the performance of the employment

I think race, religion, national origin, and maybe color are the most relevant here. Note that an EEO violation doesn’t need to be against perfect discrimination. That is, the effect is what is important. So if the policy is only enforced against those who hold a political or moral belief, one might at first think this is not an EEO violation because none of those are protected classes. However, if the effect is that a disproportionate number of any of the protected classes are affected, then the action can be deemed to be against that protected class. For example, if I make a policy and enforce it against people who are over a certain height, say, 6’ tall, that policy could be a gender-biased policy because it disproportionately affect—and thus targets—men, and gender is a protected class. So, here , one could argue that the policy is only enforced against those who make statements against Israel, and since that may affect Muslims, Arabs, etc., disproportionately, it could still be against national origin or religion.

PP here. I get all that.

But you agree that there would be no EEO claim if this teacher were of, say, Swedish origin and engaged in the exact same conduct?

Maybe, but what if the Swedish person converted to Islam?

OK, so Swedish atheist.

No EEO claim, right?

Yes and no. No claim by that person, but a claim by the affected class

Which class?

An atheist woman of Swedish national origin who engaged in identical conduct would file as a representative of which class?

And a suit filed by a representative of a protected class that was successful a year from now would not protect this hypothetical Swedish atheist person, right?

The affected class would be any Muslim or Arab. It would make the policy enforcement itself discriminatory. Personally, the best remedy is to mandate exactly what can be on an official email signature.

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue about the substance here, and IK agree with you on ideal policy.

But I am intrigued by the legal aspect. True that there could theoretically be a class claim if there was evidence of a disparate impact.
But it is true that on the facts here, if you swap out the national origin and religion of the person, there would be no valid claim. So it really isn't about protected speech at all.

That’s how a lot of large-scale discrimination cases work. The offending body creates a policy that only indirectly targets a protected group. Anybody in that protected group can file a suit for relief. I believe this is also how the “Trump Muslim Ban” case worked as well. The government was allowed to create rules about countries of origin, but it effectively became about religion instead.

PP and I get that.
My point/question was about this particular situation based on the facts we know them. MCPS takes issue with the speech itself, and there is no evidence that we know of to show that there is even one other affected person, much less enough to constitute a class. This actual individual EEO class is weak on those grounds, and if the national origin and religion of the complainant were different, there would be no EEO claim at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

Does Israel have

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

Well that’s debatable. Many Palestinians claim its a call for equality and fairness throughout the state of Israel.

It’s not debatable, that’s what it means regardless of ignorance by those who use it. Probably not of legal concern, but BLM is a positive reference for a particular group, it calls for support, the other calls for a destruction of a people.

You can’t just hijack a phrase and tell
people, no it doesn’t mean what you say, it means what I say. You don’t get to do that. Also, Isreal is calling for the destruction of Gaza and now says there can be no two state solution. So in fact being Pro Israeli is supporting terrorism and makes Muslim children feel unsafe in school. See how interpretation can be turned around?

+1000. I am Palestinian and I am literally telling people to stop hijacking the phrase and people who aren’t Palestinian love to gaslight and tell us what our phrases mean or don’t mean. Personally I don’t use the phrase because it has been completely hijacked and it’s not the battle I’m going to fight when there are other more important things, but it’s become out of control.

Does Israel have a right to exist? Now tell me how from the river to the sea isn’t a call for the destruction of Israel?

DP here. The full phrase is “from the river to the sea, Palestinians will be free”. How can you not understand that is about liberty? Especially when the people who use it tell you so? It’s predates Hamas by decades.

DP. It’s inconvenient to accept that fact. Accepting the actual meaning isn’t in furtherance of their agenda of creating the false outrage needed to serve as cover for their ongoing campaign of terror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They have no case. We’re specifically told not to write anything political in our signatures. He violated the code of conduct.

And they're alleging that that code of conduct was not enforced when other employees put political quotes in their signatures, which could give her a case.

This. Here's the complaint- https://www.cair.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/ElHagganEEOC.pdf MCPS had no problem with Black Lives Matter in signature blocks. It seems like a selective enforcement of rules based on a disfavored political opinion

it’s a call for the destruction of Israel .

No it isn’t. That is your interpretation

It is the position of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

No it is not. Only according to supporters of Israel.

It’s literally in the Hamas charter.

It’s going to come down to two things:

1. Is there a violation of the code of conduct
2. Is there selective enforcement of that code.


We don’t have all the facts here. I think the answer to (1) is “no,” but it’s subjective and potentially problematic. If the answer to (2) is “yes,” then MCPS violated EEO laws.

I don’t mean at all to get into politics here. What follows is meant to explain how complicated our own evaluation of this situation can be.

As for the Hamas charter, we should all agree that the goal is there to eliminate Israel. Maybe that is part of the criteria for evaluating (1). However, we must be very careful with that kind of evaluation. After all, Israel’s nation-state law “ establishes ‘Jewish settlement as a national value’ and mandates that the state ‘will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.’” (Source: https://www.vox.com/world/2018/7/31/17623978/israel-jewish-nation-state-law-bill-explained-apartheid-netanyahu-democracy) In other words, settlements are important to the state, and the state will support them. That also means stealing additional land as an official practice and is very close to the Hamas position.

Do we want to say one of these is right and one is wrong? MCPS can’t do that, and so I don’t think MCPS should use either position in its evaluation of the teacher adherence to the code of conduct.

There is one weakness in the bolded, and CAIR knows it because they addressed it in the complaint.

It is not an EEO violation to have selective enforcement of a restriction on speech. (It may violate other things, obviously, such as....the First Amendment)
The selective enforcement needs to be due to a protected characteristic of the individual- NOT based on the content of the speech.
CAIR knew this and made this assertion in the complaint: "Ms. El-Haggan’s views on Palestinian rights are intrinsically tied to her identity as a Muslim of Egyptian and Sudanese national origin."

To me that is the biggest weakness. That is going to be hard to prove. And it would mean that somebody without a national origin in a predominantly Muslin country would NOT be protected if they said the same thing. That seems like a bad outcome.

I wrote the statement you quoted.

That’s a good point, and I kind of assumed it. The protected classes in Maryland are as follows:

Race
Color
Religion
Sex
Age
National origin
Marital status
Gender Identity
Genetic information, or refusal to submit to a genetic test
Sexual orientation
Disability unrelated in nature and extent to the performance of the employment

I think race, religion, national origin, and maybe color are the most relevant here. Note that an EEO violation doesn’t need to be against perfect discrimination. That is, the effect is what is important. So if the policy is only enforced against those who hold a political or moral belief, one might at first think this is not an EEO violation because none of those are protected classes. However, if the effect is that a disproportionate number of any of the protected classes are affected, then the action can be deemed to be against that protected class. For example, if I make a policy and enforce it against people who are over a certain height, say, 6’ tall, that policy could be a gender-biased policy because it disproportionately affect—and thus targets—men, and gender is a protected class. So, here , one could argue that the policy is only enforced against those who make statements against Israel, and since that may affect Muslims, Arabs, etc., disproportionately, it could still be against national origin or religion.

PP here. I get all that.

But you agree that there would be no EEO claim if this teacher were of, say, Swedish origin and engaged in the exact same conduct?

Maybe, but what if the Swedish person converted to Islam?

OK, so Swedish atheist.

No EEO claim, right?

Yes and no. No claim by that person, but a claim by the affected class

Which class?

An atheist woman of Swedish national origin who engaged in identical conduct would file as a representative of which class?

And a suit filed by a representative of a protected class that was successful a year from now would not protect this hypothetical Swedish atheist person, right?

The affected class would be any Muslim or Arab. It would make the policy enforcement itself discriminatory. Personally, the best remedy is to mandate exactly what can be on an official email signature.

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue about the substance here, and IK agree with you on ideal policy.

But I am intrigued by the legal aspect. True that there could theoretically be a class claim if there was evidence of a disparate impact.
But it is true that on the facts here, if you swap out the national origin and religion of the person, there would be no valid claim. So it really isn't about protected speech at all.

That’s how a lot of large-scale discrimination cases work. The offending body creates a policy that only indirectly targets a protected group. Anybody in that protected group can file a suit for relief. I believe this is also how the “Trump Muslim Ban” case worked as well. The government was allowed to create rules about countries of origin, but it effectively became about religion instead.

PP and I get that.
My point/question was about this particular situation based on the facts we know them. MCPS takes issue with the speech itself, and there is no evidence that we know of to show that there is even one other affected person, much less enough to constitute a class. This actual individual EEO class is weak on those grounds, and if the national origin and religion of the complainant were different, there would be no EEO claim at all.

Actually, MCPS has taken action against at least two other teachers for personal social media posts. Both of these teachers posted content that was critical of the Israeli state, policy, or actions. I’ve personally seen teachers post content that is critical of Palestinian people (not just Hamas) and of their rights to freedom and property, but MCPS has not taken action against any such teacher with such views. I haven’t reported anybody though, since I believe that personal posts on social media that don’t call for genocide, violence, etc., are not subject to MCPS oversight or action.

[Anonymous]

All children need to understand there are usually different points of view.
You can grow up in a Jewish family that fully supports Israel but obviously a child growing up in a Palestinian family might think differently. And everyone else will have some type of opinion also. Why shut down all conversation and discussion? I understand if Palestinians and Israelis who are actually experiencing the war talk about feeling unsafe but when American Jews living in Bethesda or NYC start screaming how they feel unsafe, it is a little ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All children need to understand there are usually different points of view.
You can grow up in a Jewish family that fully supports Israel but obviously a child growing up in a Palestinian family might think differently. And everyone else will have some type of opinion also. Why shut down all conversation and discussion? I understand if Palestinians and Israelis who are actually experiencing the war talk about feeling unsafe but when American Jews living in Bethesda or NYC start screaming how they feel unsafe, it is a little ridiculous.

+1. It’s important for Jewish families, for example to talk about the different views of this conflict and the different sides. A child would feel threatened and upset only if they have have learned a particular interpretation from their family. How about some empathy? Consider (and tell your children) that a Palestinian teacher will have a different viewpoint likely colored by the deaths of their loved ones in this conflict, in the same way that a Jew will have their own trauma and life experiences to color their views.

[Anonymous]

Why is MCPS persecuting teachers who support Palestinians? I haven’t heard any other DMV school districts doing the same. To discipline that one teacher spouting antisemitic conspiracy theories was valid but they’ve gone off the deep end since then with any criticism of Israel or support for Gaza leading to disciplinary action. It’s like 1984. Big Brother is watching you, in and out of the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is MCPS persecuting teachers who support Palestinians? I haven’t heard any other DMV school districts doing the same. To discipline that one teacher spouting antisemitic conspiracy theories was valid but they’ve gone off the deep end since then with any criticism of Israel or support for Gaza leading to disciplinary action. It’s like 1984. Big Brother is watching you, in and out of the classroom.

OK, so if a teacher posts "there are only 2 genders," you'd be OK with that? I mena, it's true but MCPS would consider that hate speech.