Latest / Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott / Ever Heard of Fire Chief Ron Hittle?

Transcript

Ever Heard of Fire Chief Ron Hittle? · Conversations: Special Guests with Preston Scott

• 0:04
  Speaker 1: Thirty five minutes past the hour. It's Wednesday on the program.
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: Good morning and welcome if you're just joining us. Thank
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: you very much for making and carving out a little time.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Remember the podcast The Morning Show with Preston Scott. You
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: can get it on the iHeartRadio app where you can
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: just stream the show live on the iHeartRadio app. Whatever's
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: convenient for you, please to have with us. Stephanie Tobbs,
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: she's senior counsel with First Liberty Institute. And this is
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: one of those stories, friends and ruminators where when you
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: first read a story like this, you're going no, no,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: that makes no sense, And as you read into it,
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: your attitude changes from disbelief to anger. And it's kind
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: of where I'm at right now. I'm hanging in the
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: anger stage. And Stephanie tell us the story of Stockton
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: fire Chief or maybe I should say former Stockton fire
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: Chief Ron Hittel.
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: Good morning, Preston, Thank you for having me on the show.
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: So yes, we represent a First Liberty Institute. We represent
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: former fire Chief Ron Hitdle. He was a firefighter serving
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: the city of Stockton, California for twenty four years, rising
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: up to the ranks of fire chief and then after
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: the city recommended he takes some additional leadership training, he
• 1:19
  Speaker 2: sought out the best, most cost effective training he could find,
• 1:23
  Speaker 2: and he chose the Willow Creek Global Leadership Summit, which
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: has brought in world class leaders, former presidents, leaders of industry,
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: all sorts. He said it was one of the best
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: leadership conferences he's ever attended. But then the city realized
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: after someone anonymously wrote a letter that this leadership conference
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: was held at a church. It was it has religious elements,
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: even though they have people from all beliefs and backgrounds,
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: and so the city considered this to be a religious event.
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: They launched an investigation and they ultimately fired him, saying
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: all sorts of things against him, saying that he was
• 2:05
  Speaker 2: a part of a Christian coalition, saying that he might
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: ultimately win his case, but they were going to drag
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: his name.
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: Through the mud, and they've successfully done that. Now the
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: case goes before the Ninth Circuit eventually, and what did
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: the ninth Circuit decide?
• 2:22
  Speaker 2: So unfortunately, the trial court before the Ninth Circuit kicked
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: the case out before it had a chance to go
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: to a jury. And we argued at the Ninth Circuit
• 2:33
  Speaker 2: that that was inappropriate, that there was evidence of religious
• 2:36
  Speaker 2: discrimination and so it was wrong to deny him his
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: day in court before a jury. And unfortunately, the Ninth
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: Circuit affirmed what the lower court did, so they sided
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: with the city, and then we appealed to the Supreme Court.
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: Hang on, hang on, I want to get to that.
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: But back me up here second, Stephanie, without losing me
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: with a little legal ease that might leave me just
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: basking in the weiss on what grounds did the Ninth
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: Circuit say? Sorry?
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: So, there is this test that comes from a case
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: that was a Supreme Court case in the nineteen seventies
• 3:16
  Speaker 2: that established is called the McDonald Douglas test, and it
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: essentially lays out quite a few checkboxes for plaintiffs to
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: have to overcome in order to reach a jury. And
• 3:31
  Speaker 2: so we are arguing that this test is wrong. It
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: prevents meritorious cases like ron Hittles from reaching a jury.
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: But unfortunately, then the Ninth Circuit did not agree with that.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: Did you get the entire Ninth Circuit on this or
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: did you just get three of the judges.
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: So what happens is when you appeal a case, the
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: first stage of your federal appeal, you always get three judges.
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: But then we did appeal to the full Ninth Circuit,
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: which is actually about half. It's about it's not because
• 4:06
  Speaker 2: the Ninth Circuit is so big and there are so
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: many judges, you only get a portion of the Ninth
• 4:13
  Speaker 2: Circuit judges that are drawn randomly. So we did both
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: of those. We got at the three panel level, and
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: then we appealed, and we had some justices that were
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: dissenting when we went to the fuller Ninth Circuit saying
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: there was evidence of discrimination here. They completely disagreed with
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: the decision.
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: Give us kind of the layman's guide to appeals to
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court. When the Ninth Circuit saysh
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: and it's appealed to the US Supreme Court, how does
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: that technically work?
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: Absolutely so, every year the Supreme Court gets thousands of
• 4:50
  Speaker 2: requests for them to hear cases seven thousand, eight thousand,
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: It varies year by year, but they can only take
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: a small percentage. They take less than one hundred, sometimes
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: less than sixty cases a year. So this is less
• 5:05
  Speaker 2: than one percent of cases the Supreme Court actually chooses
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: to take up. So what happens is in order for
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: them to choose to take it up, you need four
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: votes of the nine justices in order to take the case,
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: and then you ultimately need five votes in order to win.
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: Isn't isn't a justice assigned to each of the circuits,
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: So who was over the ninth circuit?
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: So that is for different sorts of that's for different
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: sorts of appeals. So, yes, you're right, there are justices
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: over each of the different circuits, but they all will
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: vote about whether to take any particular case.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: That comes with So in this case, there was not
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: four justices, or there were not four justices that felt
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: this case worthy of consideration. I know that Justice Thomas
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: and Justice Gorsage dissented with the decision to not accept
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: the case. What was given as a reason to refuse
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: it or was there no reason given?
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: Most cases are simply denied without any justice writing anything
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: one way or the other. There's a list that comes
• 6:16
  Speaker 2: out in its usually just lists dozens of cases. Whenever
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: those lists comes out, just as that they were denied.
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: But here so this is unusual. You have justices saying, no,
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court really should have taken this case. This
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: is a very important issue just would have been a
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: good time to address it. This issue keeps coming up,
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: and so the Supreme Court will need to take an
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: issue like this in the future.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: All right, So now what because most times when we
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: see a story and a ruling like the Ninth Circuit
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: like this. You know, where I live here in Florida,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: We've got a couple of US District judges that we
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: just routinely laugh at because they're overruled more often than
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: you know, Carter puts new pills in the aisle. I mean,
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: it's all the time. So we normally look at a
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: ruling like this and we go, well, that's just stupid.
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: At least the Supreme Court's going to hear it. They're
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: not going to hear it. So is there's no remedy
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: left for Ron Hiddle?
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: Well, unfortunately, you're right. The case is over for Ron Hiddle,
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: and he has fought valiantly and we have been so
• 7:23
  Speaker 2: honored to represent him because he's said multiple times that
• 7:27
  Speaker 2: he was pursuing this case because of the pot he
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: wants other people to be positively impacted and not have
• 7:34
  Speaker 2: to face discrimination in the workplace. But the silver lining
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: is the Supreme Court's opinion with two justices writing a
• 7:42
  Speaker 2: really strong opinion saying that the Supreme Court needs to
• 7:45
  Speaker 2: take up a case like this and correct this chaotic
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: doctrine legal doctrine that has been causing troubling outcomes on
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: the ground. And that's a direct quote from Justice Thomas.
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: So we're hopeful that if we can that this has
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: been opening depth that lays the groundwork, and ultimately we
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: can get the Supreme Court to take a similar case
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: and protect people in the future.
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: But Ron Kittle now is left to just pick up
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: his life and do the best he can with it.
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: That's true. But fortunately he has a very strong faith
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: and a really great family, and so he has a
• 8:19
  Speaker 2: wonderful network. He's really loved in the community, and so
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: we are we're continuing to pray for him, and we're
• 8:25
  Speaker 2: so grateful for the stand he took for religious liberty.
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: Stephanie, thank you for what you and your colleagues at
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: First Liberty are doing, and pass along to the Chief.
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: He and his family will be in our prayers and
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: keep fighting the good fight.
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: Thank you so much for having me on.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Stephanie Tobb with us honestly It's a
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: bit of a gut punch, isn't it. His case is over. Unbelievably,
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: the United States Supreme Court would not take a case
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: that is egregiously applying the McDonnell Douglas standard. I read
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: into this case a little bit more than we talked
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: through because I'm just a nerd like that. I wanted
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: to make sure that we kept this in a framework
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: that was easier for everybody to kind of follow along.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: Here's my point. I know that this case is over
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: for Ron Hiddel, but it's not over. That is a
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: level of religious discrimination that cannot be allowed in this country,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: and so the fight does remain. The case may be over,
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: but the battle continues. Here in the Morning Show with
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Preston Scott,