First, Andrew Bailey: Is new MO AG auditioning for Trump administration? | Opinion
Does anyone recall the lawsuit former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey filed against Starbucks alleging that the corporate coffee giant’s policies on diversity, equity and inclusion discriminated against white men?
At the time, I thought the lawsuit was frivolous and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and other valuable state resources. There is nothing wrong with providing opportunities to marginalized groups often left at the bottom rung of the socioeconomic ladder.
Apparently, John A. Ross, the U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, agreed with my take, dismissing the case last week because the state failed to provide a shred of evidence that Starbucks discriminated against white male employees.
“Plaintiff fails to allege any actual adverse employment action undertaken as a result of unlawful discrimination, and the policies and goals described do not confer employment opportunities to one protected class at the expense or to the exclusion of another,” Ross wrote in the dismissal order.
In a previous column on the legal stunt, I wrote: “Are white men really being denied opportunities to serve lattes and Frappuccinos at Starbucks in Missouri? Highly doubtful. But if you fit this demographic and you have been turned away from being a barista or being promoted to upper management at Starbucks, feel free to email me at tporter@kcstar.com — I want to help share your story.”
Of course, no one ever reached out with credible allegations they were denied opportunities because they were male and white. In court documents, Judge Ross took the state to task for essentially pursuing such a silly and wasteful (my words) legal challenge to Starbucks’ pledge to be more inclusive.
“If individuals in Missouri do exist who have been personally discriminated against by Defendant, they are free to redress those injuries in their own individual lawsuits. The State of Missouri cannot simply step into the shoes of any group of aggrieved citizens without a quasi-sovereign interest of its own,” Ross wrote.
First Bailey, now Hanaway
Bailey is now a big shot deputy director of the FBI after he left office here for that job in Washington, D.C. Gov. Mike Kehoe tapped Catherine Hanaway as Bailey’s replacement — an appointment that The Star Editorial Board initially hoped would make the office less MAGA-fied.
Instead, the current unelected AG has wasted little time picking up the culture war shtick Bailey used to raise his profile and grab the attention of President Donald Trump. Undeterred by the dismissal of the Starbucks case, Hanaway will forge ahead with her right-wing ideological crusade, as my colleague Joel Mathis wrote last month.
In a statement sent to me, Stephanie Whitaker, a spokeswoman for the AG’s office, said the office plans to continue aggressively pursuing the Starbucks case “and other instances where companies have race-and-sex-based hiring practices in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act,” Whitaker wrote.
Has Hanaway not learned anything from Bailey’s failed attack ?
MSHSAA lawsuit is frivolous
I don’t know if Hanaway is auditioning for a spot in the Trump administration, but her insistence on filing a lawsuit against the Missouri State High School Activities Association is pure theater.
In the complaint, Hanaway alleges that MSHSAA, the governing body for high school sports and other extracurricular activities in the state, “discriminates on the basis of race and sex by refusing to consider a nominee for a leadership position based on their race and sex.”
Hanaway, a former federal prosecutor, Missouri House speaker and candidate for governor, contends that MSHSAA violated federal civil rights laws by not allowing a white male candidate to join the nonprofit’s 10-member board. She’d have a valid argument if seven board seats weren’t already filled by white men, but who’s counting?
On the merits, this case should have never been filed. According to MSHSAA’s own deep dive into its history, the organization discovered about 20 years ago that with the possible exception of one person, it had never had a minority or female board member who joined through the normal nomination and election process. That all changed after an at-large provision was enacted. According to that policy, at-large seats are reserved for underrepresented groups such as minorities and women.
First off, Hanaway is just wrong. Policies enacted to level the playing field for minorities and other marginalized groups are anything but discriminatory. Besides, as I wrote in a previous column, 70% of MSHSAA board members are white men.
In a statement on its website, MSHSAA contends the AG’s lawsuit “seeks to impose state control over the internal governance of a private association.”
“Missouri did not create MSHSAA, does not fund it, and does not oversee its operations,” the statement reads. “Nonetheless, the state now asks a federal court to dictate who may serve on MSHSAA’s volunteer board of directors and how its 724 member schools structure their leadership.
“This action raises serious concerns about governmental overreach and the precedent it would set for all private, voluntary organizations across Missouri. Allowing the state to restructure the leadership criteria of a private nonprofit organization it did not create, fund or control would mark a significant expansion of state authority into areas historically governed by local schools and private associations.”
At a Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners meeting last fall, Hanaway said she would not pursue some of the constitutional issues that made Bailey such an attractive candidate to the Trump administration.
By filing a lawsuit against MSHSAA for its at-large board member policy, I have a difficult time believing what Hanaway said then was true.
