Constitutional Law, Courts, Politics, Society

Missouri Prosecutor Awarded Over $2 Million After Being Denied Judgeship Because She Is White

The Missouri Supreme Court has handed down an important ruling on reverse discrimination — upholding an award of more than $2 million for a white prosecutor, Melissa Howard, who was denied a judgeship in 2006 because the Kansas City Council wanted a minority in the position.


The decision reverses an opinion by the appeals court that the state human rights act didn’t apply to municipal judges. Specifically, § 213.055 of the MHRA states:

1. It shall be an unlawful employment practice: (1) For an employer, because of the race, color, religion, national
origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability of any individual: (a) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability;
(b) To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or his employment applicants in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status and an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, ancestry, age or disability[.]

The city council members objected when all of the three nominees for the judgeship turned out to be white. Here are some of the statements made by council members:

“There is no diversity whatsoever . . . within the panel of contestants who have been referred to us.”
“I feel as though at this point I’m given . . . a very narrow opportunity for selection because I only have a sampling of one demographic of our city and that is Caucasian females.”
“[T]he fact remains this panel has no diversity whatsoever . . . I move that we reject . . . this panel back to the committee and not make a selection at this time.”
“For me there is an issue of equity related to racial mix, when you have thirteen candidates and you have six of color and none appear on the panel, it’s hard for me to believe that you have six of those candidates of color none of whom would qualify to be in the top three . . . I just don’t believe that is the case.”
“I have a hunch that if this [panel] is returned to the commission that there is a message there.”
“All one need do is look at the numbers, race matters in America, it matters in the State of Missouri and it matters in the city of Kansas City.”
“We need to send this panel back and show that this city, of Kansas City, is fair in its diversity practices” because “this [panel] does not reflect the diversity of Kansas City.”
“When we talk about diversity, do we include gender?”
“If there were three qualified black candidates on this panel, I would not be voting to reject the panel because they . . . did not represent the exact demographics of this city” and “this discussion is absolutely ridiculous . . . we have three qualified candidates here . . . we ought to vote for [one of them].”
“This has nothing to do with your [the panelists’] qualifications . . . I think you are certainly qualified.”
“We continue to talk about divisiveness . . . in terms of race relations . . . but the divisiveness took place when the panel was presented.”
“It ha[s] nothing to do with their credentials; I think all of them are highly qualified.”
“We have been in line for a long time . . . a lot of people have been in line . . . just to be represented.”
“Diversity . . . being an African-American in America it’s a whole lot different than you can ever imagine and so you really can’t say I understand where you are.”
“It’s not about these women. Each of these women have gone to college, earned degrees and made a very good life for themselves and have good reputations.”
“I think it’s a shame . . . [and] it may even be illegal for us to sit here and not have the courage to [s]elect a judge today.”
“These three women have risen up in a field that is male dominated . . . for us to dismiss the diversity they bring to the table is unfortunate . . . so I’m disappointed that we don’t feel you’re [the panel] minority enough – that you’re not diverse enough.”

Howard testified that she was asked why she even bothered to apply when she was not black. She was awarded $633,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages.

Here is the opinion.

Source: ABA Journal

67 thoughts on “Missouri Prosecutor Awarded Over $2 Million After Being Denied Judgeship Because She Is White”

  3. HenMan,

    Whites are a minority race world wide and I think that has always been the case. And I don’t think that is going to change even if America returned to its historic racial composition. So your comment is stupid because if there wasn’t a corrupt immigration system favoring non-whites it wouldn’t matter how many babies I produced, the racial mix in America would still be the same as it always was especially since the Democrats got blacks to snuff out their offspring at a rate about 5 times that of whites through abortion.

    The racists are people who think there is something evil about white people concentrating themselves in a few places on the planet. While, on the other hand, no one thinks for a moment that it is bad non-whites gather themselves together in nations.

    If I were a supremacist, which I am not, I would attend a church for 20 years that promoted racial supremacy: like Obama’s church. And I would, like the brown-supremacist Hispanics here in America, demand a continuance of the Hispanic monopoly on our immigration system that favors their racial and ethnic group above all others and to the detriment of whites (the historic racial group of the United States). This brown-supremacy not only represents a shift in political power not attained through the democratic process of persuasion and public debate, it represents an attack on the inheritance handed down from generation to generation among humans as they bequeath the own nations to their posterity. This subversion of this natural right is meant to destroy America with a people who have no loyalty to her, no stake in her past, no concern about her future, and little interest in learning about it.

    Inviting massive numbers of uneducated people to this country who have little interest, if any, in her history or preserving her best characteristics is an intentional assault by the US government on the ancestors of Americans of European descent. It is in the best interests of the oligarchy in both parties to import the least intellectually advanced people they can find in order to rule over them and subvert our Constitution. And that is what this immigration scheme is really about. The genocide is just a by-product.

    Someone has criticized me elsewhere for not mentioning blacks and only worrying about the impact our immigration policy is having on whites. I would mention blacks if I thought they opposed the brown-supremacist invasion. But it appears they welcome it.

    If I were a brown-supremacist I too would be mocking people like me and would call them Nazis.

  4. Tootie-

    Your failure to give birth to more Aryan babies is the root cause of the problem you complain about here. If you want to continue to be a member of the Master…er…Majority race, you must begin to pop out happy little Aryan babies on a one-a-year schedule. Any other course makes you an enemy of the Master…er…Majority race.

    “Was nicht gute Rasse ist auf dieser Welt, ist Spreu.”….Adolf Hitler in “Mein Kampf”.

  6. Mike S. and Tootie,

    Because I’m bored:
    According to the 1790 Census: “other” (nonwhite) free persons and slaves accounted for just shy of 20% of the population. So 80% white.
    In the 2000 census: 75% of households reported themselves as “White or Caucasian.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_Census
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_Census

    So, Tootie, I’ll add another two questions (the first still remaining unanswered), how does a dropping from 80% to 75% “inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” and on what basis do you claim that it’s deliberate? Again, please be specific.

  7. How come you all are beating up on Tootie? I know what it’s like to be a victim. Tootie is right, you all are wrong. Tootie is so smart and intelligent. I bet she has a high IQ, you all should be so lucky.

  8. “One of the hallmarks of the bigot is to profess the victimization, that they perpetrate on others. This allows them the pretense of believing they are moral people.” (Mike Spindell)

    =====================================================

    Absolutely true

  9. “Not all people who belong to groups which suffer persecution arrogantly use that persecution to bully and intimidate others to be silent about things they do not wish to discuss.”

    Tootie,
    You were the one who brought genocide into the discussion and I was the one correcting you. That was no attempt to silence you as your current writings after wards showed. That you have falsely stated that reducing the white population from 90% (I think that is a too high estimate) to 50% is genocidal is frankly absurd because no one was being murdered. The “cide” in genocide is a Latin root meaning murder. As in regicide, patricide, fratricide, etc. Immigration murdered no whites, but did increase the population lessening the percentage of whites here. Now if you really wanted to understand what was going on you might want to read up on who it was that started US immigration in the first place. You would see that it was Rich People and their private business interests. I doubt that you would though, because as I sadly stated above you are allowing the bigot in you to show itself. One of the hallmarks of the bigot is to profess the victimization, that they perpetrate on others. This allows them the pretense of believing they are moral people.

  10. Mike A,

    I thought of a great play on words right after I hit send:

    “I Know Nothing about what you’re talking about.”

  11. Gyges:

    Precisely. Now, of course, nativists are represented by the Tea Party.

  13. Tootie:

    The views you have expressed on this and other threads regarding immigration are all variations of what I call the “Gen. Jack Ripper Theory of Cultural Disintegration.” You fear the loss of our precious bodily fluids through the introduction of people who do not share our western European blood lines, culture, religion and traditions. (I speak, of course, as a white male.)

    Your arguments have been around for the entire history of this country. Others have provided virtual lists of both violent and non-violent efforts to prevent various ethnic groups from entering the country through the years. Immigration policy has alternated between laxity and strictness in accordance with the prevailing political winds.

    The truth is that the America we see today might well be quite different from America one hundred years from now. That is what happens. It is not a conspiracy. It is simply change. And each generation will adapt to the changes peculiar to its time. To fear it or to believe that it means the end of civilization is both paranoid and foolish.

  14. Tootie,

    Here’s a fun fact for you: as of 2000 there were roughly 31,000,000 “foreign born residents” of the U.S. that’s roughly 11% of the population.

    So, how does having a 11% foreign population equate to a “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”

    In specific details if you please. Once more, I’m especially interested in how the deliberate part.

  15. Tootie:

    When I do make something up, I’ll let you know. But, by all means, feel free to make shit up yourself. It’s something you are quite adept at. Congrats.

  17. Jill Chavez:

    I’ve never been oppressed on account of being a woman. I have, until the fascist took over, lived in utter freedom.

  19. Gynes:

    *(note, this article uses shockingly obscene language. The obscene language is the word “white” used when referring to people of the Caucasian race.)

    You printed the law out for me and you didn’t read it?

    These two clauses apply, but (c) mostly applies:

    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

    and

    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

    They don’t specify the methods because the methods vary.

    If you don’t think taking the white US population and systematically reducing it from 90 percent of the population to less than 50 percent (or more) qualifies as some kind of physical destruction, I tend to think you don’t know what destruction is. If it got to be that whites are 10 percent of the US population would you then like to admit white people had indeed suffered, in part, its physical destruction?

    I mistakenly used the word “cultural”. The word that is used in the law is “national”. The four groups are ethnic, national (not cultural), racial, and religious.

    From the website called Genocide Watch (a site I am not promoting or agreeing with):

    “The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be INFERRED from a SYSTEMATIC PATTERN OF COORDINATED ACTS.” (my emphasis).

    Reducing the white race to minority status though immigration against their will fits that description in every meaningful way. This also denies Americans the right of self determination–another concept in International law which is being violated here.

    Never in the history of the world has such a catastrophic shift of a race of people (culture, ethnicity, and religion) occurred on such a large scale outside of direct murder. Though,it appears you this as catastrophic, let’s pretend yo do. That this shift in racial status is occurring bloodlessly doesn’t mean it is not occurring at all. That it is happening peacefully appears only to be a testimony to the decency of white Americans who are watching themselves become overrun with an immigrant pool of persons they were told (in 1965) would not be different from them ethnically.

    This is now clearly a fraud perpetrated by government on the people to whom this promise was made.

    If the shift in the majority status of whites is not a result of immigration, to what to you attribute the decline in majority status? If immigration was not as it is being practiced (to disfavor whites in the immigration process), the white population would have remained at a steady state at 90 percent with the black and other populations totaling its historical rate at about 12 percent.

    What non-white civilizations today that you know of are reducing their majority races from 90 percent to less than 50 percent and how are they doing it besides murdering people? Wow, I’m thankful the feds are not just murdering us instead. Oh wait, there’s the death panels. Those will hit whites the hardest. (Got to get rid of whites who vote as quickly as possible)

    What if the Nigerian government forced the Nigerian black population into minority status by forcing massive waves of white immigrants on the nation, then favoring the whites immigrants for generations with privileges and government hand-outs, to be paid for by the blacks?

    What kind of impact do you think that would have on the native born black population? To their betterment? Or detriment?

    And do you think that would be just?

    http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/whatisit.html

Comments are closed.