$100K settlement awarded to ex-Virginia Tech soccer player who refused to bend the knee in solidarity with BLM: Report



The ex-Virginia Tech soccer player who was allegedly penalized over her refusal to kneel during a 2020 Black Lives Matter protest will reportedly be awarded a $100,000 settlement.

What's the background?

Kiersten Hening claimed that she had lost her starting position on Virginia Tech's Hokies women's soccer team after she elected not to take part in a so-called pre-game unity ceremony on Sept. 12, 2020, in support of the scandal-plagued BLM movement.

She indicated that her refusal was met by a "campaign of abuse and retaliation" launched by Hokies coach Charles "Chugger" Adair.

Hening had been a midfielder/defender for the team from 2018 to 2020.

According to the New York Post, she started 19 games in 2018 and played in 18 games in 2019.

The Hokies women's soccer website indicated that in 2019, Hening was "one of five Hokies to see more than 80 percent of the total team minutes played for the year, logging 1,665 total minutes of action, second most among field players."

Attorneys for the university counterclaimed that Hening had been benched for poor performance, and Adair suggested she had been replaced by another player who refused to kneel in solidarity with BLM.

Hening, allegedly benched for her conservative stance, subsequently filed a lawsuit against Adair in Roanoke Division of the United States District Court's Western District of Virginia on March 3, 2021.

TheBlaze previously reported that Federal Judge Thomas Cullen ruled on Dec. 2, 2022, that the lawsuit could proceed, denying a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

"Ultimately, Adair may convince a jury that this coaching decision was based solely on Hening’s poor play during the UVA game, but the court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hening, cannot reach that conclusion as a matter of law," said Cullen.

The suit claimed that Adair singled out Hening "and verbally attacked her, pointing a finger directly in her face. He denounced Hening for 'bitching and moaning,' for being selfish and individualistic, and for 'doing her own thing.'"

While Hening indicated in her lawsuit that she "supports social justice and believes ... black lives matter," she "does not support BLM the organization," taking issue with its "tactics and core tenets of its mission statement, including defunding the police."

The identitarian leftist group Hening refused to side with not only called for police to be defunded but for the disruption of the nuclear family and for "a queer-affirming network."

Beyond castigating the player for refusing to signal agreeance with the claims advanced by BLM, the suit claimed that the coach had violated Hening's First Amendment rights.

The settlement

The three-day trial scheduled later this month has been called off.

Roanoke Times reported that Hening will receive $100,000 as part of an agreement to dismiss her federal lawsuit.

Hening's attorney, Cameron Norris, indicated that — per the terms of the settlement which the university and state officials must still approve — this resolution does not require an admission of wrongdoing from either Hening or Adair.

In a poorly-received statement on Twitter, Adair wrote, "I am pleased the case against me has been closed and I am free to move forward clear of any wrongdoing. ... It's unfortunate, but this ordeal was about a disappointment and a disagreement about playing time."

Attorney Adam Mortara responded, "If by clarity you mean you are paying my client six figures in a settlement then you’re right that’s pretty clear. Honestly, Coach, read the Court’s opinion. You are paying. Defendants don’t pay in cases that have no standing."

\u201c@CoachChugger If by clarity you mean you are paying my client six figures in a settlement then you\u2019re right that\u2019s pretty clear. Honestly, Coach, read the Court\u2019s opinion. You are paying. Defendants don\u2019t pay in cases that have no standing.\u201d
— CoachChugger (@CoachChugger) 1672852699


Lawsuit: Soccer player claims refusal to kneel cost her youtu.be

'Bags fly free with Southwest. But free speech didn't fly at all': Judge orders Southwest Airlines to reinstate flight attendant fired for expressing pro-life views



Southwest Airlines fired former flight attendant Charlene Carter from her "dream job" for expressing pro-life views. Carter fought the airline and Transport Workers Union Local 556 for nearly six years and won in July.

The judge who ruled in her favor issued an order this week requiring the airline to reinstate Carter with full seniority and benefits.

What are the details?

In July, a federal jury agreed that Carter had been wrongfully terminated for her pro-life and religious views and awarded the former flight attendant a $5.1 million verdict — $950,000 from Local 556 of the Transport Workers Union and $4.15 million from Southwest Airlines.

The Dallas Morning News reported that U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr, nominated by former President Donald Trump in 2019, had to reduce the original amount to $810,180, including $150,000 in back pay, because federal discrimination law limits damages that companies can pay out.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the amount Carter will ultimately receive comprises $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from Southwest and another $300,000 for the same from the union; $150,000 in back pay; and over $60,000 in prejudgment interest.

While noting that the jury had also awarded Carter future pay lost as a result of her discriminatory firing by Southwest, Starr wrote that "Carter would rather have her job back."

Accordingly, the "Court reinstates Carter to her former position. ... If the Court opted for front pay over reinstatement, the court would complete Southwest's unlawful scheme. Reinstatement is appropriate."

Despite having had to significantly cut down Carter's compensation, Starr nevertheless enjoined the defendants "from discriminating against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs, including — but not limited to — those expressed on social media and those concerning abortion."

Extra to restoring Carter's job, Starr required both the airline and the union to electronically share the court's decision with all union members and to post the documents in conspicuous places for two months.

Accordingly, Southwest will have to remind its employees that the company is not allowed to discriminate against them for expressing their opinions about abortion online.

The judge also wrote that the airline's lawyers "continue to hunt for 'controversial' social-media posts from Carter instead of pondering their own mistakes and planning a future life free of them," despite having been found by a jury to be "grossly intolerant of their flight attendants' speech in violation of federal law."

"Bags fly free with Southwest. But free speech didn’t fly at all with Southwest in this case," wrote Starr.

Southwest's pro-abortion baggage

Carter complained in 2017 to then-union president Audrey Stone that union members used union funds to travel to Washington, D.C., for the purposes of protesting former President Donald Trump's pro-life views. The protest was reportedly also sponsored by abortion activist groups such as Planned Parenthood.

Despite having terminated her membership with the union years earlier, under the conditions of her employment, Carter was still required to pay union fees — fees that subsidized the pro-abortion protest in Washington.

According to Life News, Carter had spent much of her adult life struggling with depression and regret over having let Planned Parenthood kill her unborn baby.

Made financially complicit in speech and actions she had long grown to detest, Carter spoke out.

While some union members went to express their disdain for Trump's opposition to the killing of the unborn, Carter took to social media to criticize both the pro-abortion march and Stone, calling the latter "despicable."

Carter was brought in by Southwest representatives one week later and asked to explain herself and her Facebook posts. The explanations, though honest, were apparently not what the company wanted to hear.

After working for the airline for 20 years, Carter was fired on March 16, 2017, for allegedly violating the company's harassment policy.

Upon Carter's victory over the airline in July, National Right to Work — the organization that provided Carter with free legal representation — stated, "This long overdue verdict vindicates Ms. Carter’s fundamental right to dissent from the causes and ideas that TWU union officials – who claim to ‘represent’ Southwest flight attendants – support while forcing workers to bankroll their activities."

"No American worker should have to fear termination, intimidation, or any other reprisal merely for speaking out against having their own money spent, purportedly in their name, to promote an agenda they find abhorrent," the organization added.

Southwest Airlines spokesman Brandy King indicated that the airline intends to appeal the verdict to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Illinois Democrats Want To Nuke Conscience Protection Law To Eliminate Exceptions To Vaccine Mandates

The governor and legislature are now proposing to 'clarify' the legislation, by which they mean to prevent people from using it for its intended purpose.