I'm not sure on what legal principle its been allowed to this point. I also can't imagine what would have changed (this seems like it would have happened well before recent SC decisions; I'm assuming those are too recent to make a difference). Sounds like this is a case being brought by people trying to make a difference. Maybe they though a female employee presents a more valid case.
I'm not sure on what legal principle its been allowed to this point. I also can't imagine what would have changed (this seems like it would have happened well before recent SC decisions; I'm assuming those are too recent to make a difference). Sounds like this is a case being brought by people trying to make a difference. Maybe they though a female employee presents a more valid case.