Judge Blocks Florida From Applying Stop Woke Act To Private Employers

Comment FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A federal judge on Thursday blocked Florida from implementing a new state law restricting how private companies teach diversity and inclusion in the workplace, saying the measure violates right to freedom of speech and expression of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In a ruling that took aim at one of Gov. Ron DeSandis’ top priorities, U.S. District Court Judge Mark E. Walker said Florida overturned “the First Amendment” by trying to regulate how employers train their workers on issues such as racial inclusion and gender equality. “Ordinarily, the First Amendment prohibits the state from burdening speech, while private actors may freely burden speech,” Walker wrote, comparing the state to the TV series “Stranger Things.” “But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently prohibits private entities from encumbering speech, while the state is free to encumber speech.” Walker’s decision prevents Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) and state regulators from enforcing a key provision of the Stop Woke Act, which the Republican-controlled Legislature passed in March. DeSantis, a potential 2024 presidential candidate, often touts the measure during political speeches before conservative audiences. Representatives for DeSantis and Moody did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Stop Woke Act, also referred to in court filings as the “Individual Freedom Measure,” prohibits training in public schools, colleges and universities and workplaces that may make someone feel guilty or ashamed of their past collective actions. his race. or sex. Violation of the act is a crime under state anti-discrimination laws. As students return to classrooms, the law is already having far-reaching consequences, with teachers abandoning some lesson plans amid much confusion over how to enforce it. In July, the University of Central Florida even removed statements condemning racism from some websites, which faculty members believed was a response to the law. The injunction, issued by Walker in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee, only prevents enforcement of the law’s provisions regarding training offered by private employers. However, several other legal challenges have been filed against other provisions of the law, including a lawsuit Thursday against the American Civil Liberties Union filed on behalf of 10 college professors. That lawsuit, also filed in federal court, seeks to block Florida from restricting how colleges and universities offer courses on race, gender and the legacy of discrimination. The lawsuit Walker ruled on Thursday was filed by two Florida-based companies, Honeyfund.com and Primo, as well as an individual and a consulting firm that conducts diversity training at businesses across the state. Honeyfund.com, based in Clearwater, Florida, is an online wedding registry. Primo is a franchise of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, with locations in Clearwater and Tampa. Honeyfund.com had argued in court that it was concerned the new law would prevent it from holding an employee seminar that included “advancing women in business, understanding gender inclusiveness” and “understanding institutional racism”. Primo planned to teach its employees about “systemic racism, oppression and intersectionality.” In an unusually pointed opinion, Walker dismantled many of Florida’s defenses of the Stop Woke Act. In addition to ruling that the law was a clear violation of the First Amendment, Walker also said it violated the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. “It was a very strong decision and it made very clear that this is a very flagrant violation of the Constitution,” said lead counsel for the defendants, Shalini Agarwal, who also works with the nonpartisan citizens’ group Protect Democracy. At the root of the 44-page decision is Walker’s skepticism that the state of Florida should decide what workers might find unacceptable. He said the state had unclear interpretations of the law’s eight provisions, including those dealing with what might cause someone to feel discomfort or distress in the workplace. “Even the slightest endorsement of any of the eight concepts in any required work activity violates the statute,” Walker noted. “THE [Individual Freedom Measure] requires no proof that the statement is even subjectively offensive. Nor does the IFA require that the statement create a seriously or pervasively hostile work environment.’ “Therefore, the IFA, by design,” Walker added, “does not provide shelter for core protected speech.” At one point, Walker suggested the law appeared to be an attempt by Florida lawmakers to silence the voices of those who might question the lawmakers’ views on the nation’s diversity. “If Florida really believes we live in a post-racial society, then let her make her case,” Walker wrote. “But she can’t win the argument by silencing her opponents.” The first section of the law restricts from courses and training the notion that “members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.” Walker said the provision was “steeped in obscurity”. “Imagine an employer, during a mandatory dispute resolution course, mentions the civil disobedience exemplified by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi as a peaceful, preferred approach,” Walker wrote. “This employer has “impregnated” him working under the belief that blacks and Asians are morally superior to whites?’ Walker denounced another provision of the law, saying it “is incomprehensible.” The provision states “[m]Members of a race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect for race, color, sex, or national origin.” “It is not clear what is prohibited, and even less clear what is permitted,” Walker wrote. Agarwal said the state must now decide whether to seek a District Court trial to try to overturn Walker’s order. The state could also appeal its decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Florida could also drop its legal defense of the matter. Although Walker’s ruling does not apply to the law’s application to public schools or colleges, Agarwal and other attorneys said they believe all parts of the measure are on shaky legal ground. In its lawsuit seeking to block the law from being implemented at colleges and universities, ACLU attorneys argued that the law “Vague terms and a private enforcement mechanism stifle speech and expression, including limiting campus speech and eliminating academic freedom.” “The Stop WOKE act attempts to censor conversations and erase the history and lived experiences of Black, LGBTQ, women, and other people of color who struggle on a daily basis to achieve racial justice and make a positive change,” said Leroy Pernell. , a plaintiff in the lawsuit who teaches law at the Florida A&M University College of Law “We deserve to have free and open exchanges about racism in the classroom.”

title: “Judge Blocks Florida From Applying Stop Woke Act To Private Employers Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-02” author: “Julia Gagne”

Comment FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A federal judge on Thursday blocked Florida from implementing a new state law restricting how private companies teach diversity and inclusion in the workplace, saying the measure violates right to freedom of speech and expression of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In a ruling that took aim at one of Gov. Ron DeSandis’ top priorities, U.S. District Court Judge Mark E. Walker said Florida overturned “the First Amendment” by trying to regulate how employers train their workers on issues such as racial inclusion and gender equality. “Ordinarily, the First Amendment prohibits the state from burdening speech, while private actors may freely burden speech,” Walker wrote, comparing the state to the TV series “Stranger Things.” “But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently prohibits private entities from encumbering speech, while the state is free to encumber speech.” Walker’s decision prevents Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) and state regulators from enforcing a key provision of the Stop Woke Act, which the Republican-controlled Legislature passed in March. DeSantis, a potential 2024 presidential candidate, often touts the measure during political speeches before conservative audiences. Representatives for DeSantis and Moody did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Stop Woke Act, also referred to in court filings as the “Individual Freedom Measure,” prohibits training in public schools, colleges and universities and workplaces that may make someone feel guilty or ashamed of their past collective actions. his race. or sex. Violation of the act is a crime under state anti-discrimination laws. As students return to classrooms, the law is already having far-reaching consequences, with teachers abandoning some lesson plans amid much confusion over how to enforce it. In July, the University of Central Florida even removed statements condemning racism from some websites, which faculty members believed was a response to the law. The injunction, issued by Walker in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee, only prevents enforcement of the law’s provisions regarding training offered by private employers. However, several other legal challenges have been filed against other provisions of the law, including a lawsuit Thursday against the American Civil Liberties Union filed on behalf of 10 college professors. That lawsuit, also filed in federal court, seeks to block Florida from restricting how colleges and universities offer courses on race, gender and the legacy of discrimination. The lawsuit Walker ruled on Thursday was filed by two Florida-based companies, Honeyfund.com and Primo, as well as an individual and a consulting firm that conducts diversity training at businesses across the state. Honeyfund.com, based in Clearwater, Florida, is an online wedding registry. Primo is a franchise of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, with locations in Clearwater and Tampa. Honeyfund.com had argued in court that it was concerned the new law would prevent it from holding an employee seminar that included “advancing women in business, understanding gender inclusiveness” and “understanding institutional racism”. Primo planned to teach its employees about “systemic racism, oppression and intersectionality.” In an unusually pointed opinion, Walker dismantled many of Florida’s defenses of the Stop Woke Act. In addition to ruling that the law was a clear violation of the First Amendment, Walker also said it violated the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. “It was a very strong decision and it made very clear that this is a very flagrant violation of the Constitution,” said lead counsel for the defendants, Shalini Agarwal, who also works with the nonpartisan citizens’ group Protect Democracy. At the root of the 44-page decision is Walker’s skepticism that the state of Florida should decide what workers might find unacceptable. He said the state had unclear interpretations of the law’s eight provisions, including those dealing with what might cause someone to feel discomfort or distress in the workplace. “Even the slightest endorsement of any of the eight concepts in any required work activity violates the statute,” Walker noted. “THE [Individual Freedom Measure] requires no proof that the statement is even subjectively offensive. Nor does the IFA require that the statement create a seriously or pervasively hostile work environment.’ “Therefore, the IFA, by design,” Walker added, “does not provide shelter for core protected speech.” At one point, Walker suggested the law appeared to be an attempt by Florida lawmakers to silence the voices of those who might question the lawmakers’ views on the nation’s diversity. “If Florida really believes we live in a post-racial society, then let her make her case,” Walker wrote. “But she can’t win the argument by silencing her opponents.” The first section of the law restricts from courses and training the notion that “members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.” Walker said the provision was “steeped in obscurity”. “Imagine an employer, during a mandatory dispute resolution course, mentions the civil disobedience exemplified by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi as a peaceful, preferred approach,” Walker wrote. “This employer has “impregnated” him working under the belief that blacks and Asians are morally superior to whites?’ Walker denounced another provision of the law, saying it “is incomprehensible.” The provision states “[m]Members of a race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect for race, color, sex, or national origin.” “It is not clear what is prohibited, and even less clear what is permitted,” Walker wrote. Agarwal said the state must now decide whether to seek a District Court trial to try to overturn Walker’s order. The state could also appeal its decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Florida could also drop its legal defense of the matter. Although Walker’s ruling does not apply to the law’s application to public schools or colleges, Agarwal and other attorneys said they believe all parts of the measure are on shaky legal ground. In its lawsuit seeking to block the law from being implemented at colleges and universities, ACLU attorneys argued that the law “Vague terms and a private enforcement mechanism stifle speech and expression, including limiting campus speech and eliminating academic freedom.” “The Stop WOKE act attempts to censor conversations and erase the history and lived experiences of Black, LGBTQ, women, and other people of color who struggle on a daily basis to achieve racial justice and make a positive change,” said Leroy Pernell. , a plaintiff in the lawsuit who teaches law at the Florida A&M University College of Law “We deserve to have free and open exchanges about racism in the classroom.”

title: “Judge Blocks Florida From Applying Stop Woke Act To Private Employers Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-25” author: “Darrel Landry”

Comment FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A federal judge on Thursday blocked Florida from implementing a new state law restricting how private companies teach diversity and inclusion in the workplace, saying the measure violates right to freedom of speech and expression of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In a ruling that took aim at one of Gov. Ron DeSandis’ top priorities, U.S. District Court Judge Mark E. Walker said Florida overturned “the First Amendment” by trying to regulate how employers train their workers on issues such as racial inclusion and gender equality. “Ordinarily, the First Amendment prohibits the state from burdening speech, while private actors may freely burden speech,” Walker wrote, comparing the state to the TV series “Stranger Things.” “But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently prohibits private entities from encumbering speech, while the state is free to encumber speech.” Walker’s decision prevents Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) and state regulators from enforcing a key provision of the Stop Woke Act, which the Republican-controlled Legislature passed in March. DeSantis, a potential 2024 presidential candidate, often touts the measure during political speeches before conservative audiences. Representatives for DeSantis and Moody did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Stop Woke Act, also referred to in court filings as the “Individual Freedom Measure,” prohibits training in public schools, colleges and universities and workplaces that may make someone feel guilty or ashamed of their past collective actions. his race. or sex. Violation of the act is a crime under state anti-discrimination laws. As students return to classrooms, the law is already having far-reaching consequences, with teachers abandoning some lesson plans amid much confusion over how to enforce it. In July, the University of Central Florida even removed statements condemning racism from some websites, which faculty members believed was a response to the law. The injunction, issued by Walker in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee, only prevents enforcement of the law’s provisions regarding training offered by private employers. However, several other legal challenges have been filed against other provisions of the law, including a lawsuit Thursday against the American Civil Liberties Union filed on behalf of 10 college professors. That lawsuit, also filed in federal court, seeks to block Florida from restricting how colleges and universities offer courses on race, gender and the legacy of discrimination. The lawsuit Walker ruled on Thursday was filed by two Florida-based companies, Honeyfund.com and Primo, as well as an individual and a consulting firm that conducts diversity training at businesses across the state. Honeyfund.com, based in Clearwater, Florida, is an online wedding registry. Primo is a franchise of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, with locations in Clearwater and Tampa. Honeyfund.com had argued in court that it was concerned the new law would prevent it from holding an employee seminar that included “advancing women in business, understanding gender inclusiveness” and “understanding institutional racism”. Primo planned to teach its employees about “systemic racism, oppression and intersectionality.” In an unusually pointed opinion, Walker dismantled many of Florida’s defenses of the Stop Woke Act. In addition to ruling that the law was a clear violation of the First Amendment, Walker also said it violated the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. “It was a very strong decision and it made very clear that this is a very flagrant violation of the Constitution,” said lead counsel for the defendants, Shalini Agarwal, who also works with the nonpartisan citizens’ group Protect Democracy. At the root of the 44-page decision is Walker’s skepticism that the state of Florida should decide what workers might find unacceptable. He said the state had unclear interpretations of the law’s eight provisions, including those dealing with what might cause someone to feel discomfort or distress in the workplace. “Even the slightest endorsement of any of the eight concepts in any required work activity violates the statute,” Walker noted. “THE [Individual Freedom Measure] requires no proof that the statement is even subjectively offensive. Nor does the IFA require that the statement create a seriously or pervasively hostile work environment.’ “Therefore, the IFA, by design,” Walker added, “does not provide shelter for core protected speech.” At one point, Walker suggested the law appeared to be an attempt by Florida lawmakers to silence the voices of those who might question the lawmakers’ views on the nation’s diversity. “If Florida really believes we live in a post-racial society, then let her make her case,” Walker wrote. “But she can’t win the argument by silencing her opponents.” The first section of the law restricts from courses and training the notion that “members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.” Walker said the provision was “steeped in obscurity”. “Imagine an employer, during a mandatory dispute resolution course, mentions the civil disobedience exemplified by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi as a peaceful, preferred approach,” Walker wrote. “This employer has “impregnated” him working under the belief that blacks and Asians are morally superior to whites?’ Walker denounced another provision of the law, saying it “is incomprehensible.” The provision states “[m]Members of a race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect for race, color, sex, or national origin.” “It is not clear what is prohibited, and even less clear what is permitted,” Walker wrote. Agarwal said the state must now decide whether to seek a District Court trial to try to overturn Walker’s order. The state could also appeal its decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Florida could also drop its legal defense of the matter. Although Walker’s ruling does not apply to the law’s application to public schools or colleges, Agarwal and other attorneys said they believe all parts of the measure are on shaky legal ground. In its lawsuit seeking to block the law from being implemented at colleges and universities, ACLU attorneys argued that the law “Vague terms and a private enforcement mechanism stifle speech and expression, including limiting campus speech and eliminating academic freedom.” “The Stop WOKE act attempts to censor conversations and erase the history and lived experiences of Black, LGBTQ, women, and other people of color who struggle on a daily basis to achieve racial justice and make a positive change,” said Leroy Pernell. , a plaintiff in the lawsuit who teaches law at the Florida A&M University College of Law “We deserve to have free and open exchanges about racism in the classroom.”

title: “Judge Blocks Florida From Applying Stop Woke Act To Private Employers Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-10-30” author: “Edward Springer”

Comment FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A federal judge on Thursday blocked Florida from implementing a new state law restricting how private companies teach diversity and inclusion in the workplace, saying the measure violates right to freedom of speech and expression of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In a ruling that took aim at one of Gov. Ron DeSandis’ top priorities, U.S. District Court Judge Mark E. Walker said Florida overturned “the First Amendment” by trying to regulate how employers train their workers on issues such as racial inclusion and gender equality. “Ordinarily, the First Amendment prohibits the state from burdening speech, while private actors may freely burden speech,” Walker wrote, comparing the state to the TV series “Stranger Things.” “But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently prohibits private entities from encumbering speech, while the state is free to encumber speech.” Walker’s decision prevents Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) and state regulators from enforcing a key provision of the Stop Woke Act, which the Republican-controlled Legislature passed in March. DeSantis, a potential 2024 presidential candidate, often touts the measure during political speeches before conservative audiences. Representatives for DeSantis and Moody did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Stop Woke Act, also referred to in court filings as the “Individual Freedom Measure,” prohibits training in public schools, colleges and universities and workplaces that may make someone feel guilty or ashamed of their past collective actions. his race. or sex. Violation of the act is a crime under state anti-discrimination laws. As students return to classrooms, the law is already having far-reaching consequences, with teachers abandoning some lesson plans amid much confusion over how to enforce it. In July, the University of Central Florida even removed statements condemning racism from some websites, which faculty members believed was a response to the law. The injunction, issued by Walker in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee, only prevents enforcement of the law’s provisions regarding training offered by private employers. However, several other legal challenges have been filed against other provisions of the law, including a lawsuit Thursday against the American Civil Liberties Union filed on behalf of 10 college professors. That lawsuit, also filed in federal court, seeks to block Florida from restricting how colleges and universities offer courses on race, gender and the legacy of discrimination. The lawsuit Walker ruled on Thursday was filed by two Florida-based companies, Honeyfund.com and Primo, as well as an individual and a consulting firm that conducts diversity training at businesses across the state. Honeyfund.com, based in Clearwater, Florida, is an online wedding registry. Primo is a franchise of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, with locations in Clearwater and Tampa. Honeyfund.com had argued in court that it was concerned the new law would prevent it from holding an employee seminar that included “advancing women in business, understanding gender inclusiveness” and “understanding institutional racism”. Primo planned to teach its employees about “systemic racism, oppression and intersectionality.” In an unusually pointed opinion, Walker dismantled many of Florida’s defenses of the Stop Woke Act. In addition to ruling that the law was a clear violation of the First Amendment, Walker also said it violated the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. “It was a very strong decision and it made very clear that this is a very flagrant violation of the Constitution,” said lead counsel for the defendants, Shalini Agarwal, who also works with the nonpartisan citizens’ group Protect Democracy. At the root of the 44-page decision is Walker’s skepticism that the state of Florida should decide what workers might find unacceptable. He said the state had unclear interpretations of the law’s eight provisions, including those dealing with what might cause someone to feel discomfort or distress in the workplace. “Even the slightest endorsement of any of the eight concepts in any required work activity violates the statute,” Walker noted. “THE [Individual Freedom Measure] requires no proof that the statement is even subjectively offensive. Nor does the IFA require that the statement create a seriously or pervasively hostile work environment.’ “Therefore, the IFA, by design,” Walker added, “does not provide shelter for core protected speech.” At one point, Walker suggested the law appeared to be an attempt by Florida lawmakers to silence the voices of those who might question the lawmakers’ views on the nation’s diversity. “If Florida really believes we live in a post-racial society, then let her make her case,” Walker wrote. “But she can’t win the argument by silencing her opponents.” The first section of the law restricts from courses and training the notion that “members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.” Walker said the provision was “steeped in obscurity”. “Imagine an employer, during a mandatory dispute resolution course, mentions the civil disobedience exemplified by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi as a peaceful, preferred approach,” Walker wrote. “This employer has “impregnated” him working under the belief that blacks and Asians are morally superior to whites?’ Walker denounced another provision of the law, saying it “is incomprehensible.” The provision states “[m]Members of a race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect for race, color, sex, or national origin.” “It is not clear what is prohibited, and even less clear what is permitted,” Walker wrote. Agarwal said the state must now decide whether to seek a District Court trial to try to overturn Walker’s order. The state could also appeal its decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Florida could also drop its legal defense of the matter. Although Walker’s ruling does not apply to the law’s application to public schools or colleges, Agarwal and other attorneys said they believe all parts of the measure are on shaky legal ground. In its lawsuit seeking to block the law from being implemented at colleges and universities, ACLU attorneys argued that the law “Vague terms and a private enforcement mechanism stifle speech and expression, including limiting campus speech and eliminating academic freedom.” “The Stop WOKE act attempts to censor conversations and erase the history and lived experiences of Black, LGBTQ, women, and other people of color who struggle on a daily basis to achieve racial justice and make a positive change,” said Leroy Pernell. , a plaintiff in the lawsuit who teaches law at the Florida A&M University College of Law “We deserve to have free and open exchanges about racism in the classroom.”

title: “Judge Blocks Florida From Applying Stop Woke Act To Private Employers Klmat” ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-30” author: “Denise Farris”

Comment FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A federal judge on Thursday blocked Florida from implementing a new state law restricting how private companies teach diversity and inclusion in the workplace, saying the measure violates right to freedom of speech and expression of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In a ruling that took aim at one of Gov. Ron DeSandis’ top priorities, U.S. District Court Judge Mark E. Walker said Florida overturned “the First Amendment” by trying to regulate how employers train their workers on issues such as racial inclusion and gender equality. “Ordinarily, the First Amendment prohibits the state from burdening speech, while private actors may freely burden speech,” Walker wrote, comparing the state to the TV series “Stranger Things.” “But in Florida, the First Amendment apparently prohibits private entities from encumbering speech, while the state is free to encumber speech.” Walker’s decision prevents Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) and state regulators from enforcing a key provision of the Stop Woke Act, which the Republican-controlled Legislature passed in March. DeSantis, a potential 2024 presidential candidate, often touts the measure during political speeches before conservative audiences. Representatives for DeSantis and Moody did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Stop Woke Act, also referred to in court filings as the “Individual Freedom Measure,” prohibits training in public schools, colleges and universities and workplaces that may make someone feel guilty or ashamed of their past collective actions. his race. or sex. Violation of the act is a crime under state anti-discrimination laws. As students return to classrooms, the law is already having far-reaching consequences, with teachers abandoning some lesson plans amid much confusion over how to enforce it. In July, the University of Central Florida even removed statements condemning racism from some websites, which faculty members believed was a response to the law. The injunction, issued by Walker in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee, only prevents enforcement of the law’s provisions regarding training offered by private employers. However, several other legal challenges have been filed against other provisions of the law, including a lawsuit Thursday against the American Civil Liberties Union filed on behalf of 10 college professors. That lawsuit, also filed in federal court, seeks to block Florida from restricting how colleges and universities offer courses on race, gender and the legacy of discrimination. The lawsuit Walker ruled on Thursday was filed by two Florida-based companies, Honeyfund.com and Primo, as well as an individual and a consulting firm that conducts diversity training at businesses across the state. Honeyfund.com, based in Clearwater, Florida, is an online wedding registry. Primo is a franchise of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream, with locations in Clearwater and Tampa. Honeyfund.com had argued in court that it was concerned the new law would prevent it from holding an employee seminar that included “advancing women in business, understanding gender inclusiveness” and “understanding institutional racism”. Primo planned to teach its employees about “systemic racism, oppression and intersectionality.” In an unusually pointed opinion, Walker dismantled many of Florida’s defenses of the Stop Woke Act. In addition to ruling that the law was a clear violation of the First Amendment, Walker also said it violated the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. “It was a very strong decision and it made very clear that this is a very flagrant violation of the Constitution,” said lead counsel for the defendants, Shalini Agarwal, who also works with the nonpartisan citizens’ group Protect Democracy. At the root of the 44-page decision is Walker’s skepticism that the state of Florida should decide what workers might find unacceptable. He said the state had unclear interpretations of the law’s eight provisions, including those dealing with what might cause someone to feel discomfort or distress in the workplace. “Even the slightest endorsement of any of the eight concepts in any required work activity violates the statute,” Walker noted. “THE [Individual Freedom Measure] requires no proof that the statement is even subjectively offensive. Nor does the IFA require that the statement create a seriously or pervasively hostile work environment.’ “Therefore, the IFA, by design,” Walker added, “does not provide shelter for core protected speech.” At one point, Walker suggested the law appeared to be an attempt by Florida lawmakers to silence the voices of those who might question the lawmakers’ views on the nation’s diversity. “If Florida really believes we live in a post-racial society, then let her make her case,” Walker wrote. “But she can’t win the argument by silencing her opponents.” The first section of the law restricts from courses and training the notion that “members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.” Walker said the provision was “steeped in obscurity”. “Imagine an employer, during a mandatory dispute resolution course, mentions the civil disobedience exemplified by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi as a peaceful, preferred approach,” Walker wrote. “This employer has “impregnated” him working under the belief that blacks and Asians are morally superior to whites?’ Walker denounced another provision of the law, saying it “is incomprehensible.” The provision states “[m]Members of a race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect for race, color, sex, or national origin.” “It is not clear what is prohibited, and even less clear what is permitted,” Walker wrote. Agarwal said the state must now decide whether to seek a District Court trial to try to overturn Walker’s order. The state could also appeal its decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Florida could also drop its legal defense of the matter. Although Walker’s ruling does not apply to the law’s application to public schools or colleges, Agarwal and other attorneys said they believe all parts of the measure are on shaky legal ground. In its lawsuit seeking to block the law from being implemented at colleges and universities, ACLU attorneys argued that the law “Vague terms and a private enforcement mechanism stifle speech and expression, including limiting campus speech and eliminating academic freedom.” “The Stop WOKE act attempts to censor conversations and erase the history and lived experiences of Black, LGBTQ, women, and other people of color who struggle on a daily basis to achieve racial justice and make a positive change,” said Leroy Pernell. , a plaintiff in the lawsuit who teaches law at the Florida A&M University College of Law “We deserve to have free and open exchanges about racism in the classroom.”