The ACLU's position in this case is based not only on an "expansive definition" of "racist or racially coded speech," but also on a racial hierarchy. The ACLU's emails make clear that the employee's statements were deemed racist because the employee is asian and was talking about her black supervisors. The ACLU does not seriously argue it would have deemed the same statements racist if the races were reversed.
It's not just the ACLU. Many organizations and corporations seem to have assumed that certain progressive ideas about racism are actually reflected in the law. That is not the case, and many organizations have left themselves open to civil rights suits based on these misconceptions.
> The A.C.L.U. acknowledges that Ms. Oh, who is Korean American, never used any kind of racial slur. But the group says that her use of certain phrases and words demonstrated a pattern of willful anti-Black animus.
> In one instance, according to court documents, she told a Black superior that she was “afraid” to talk with him. In another, she told a manager that their conversation was “chastising.” And in a meeting, she repeated a satirical phrase likening her bosses’ behavior to suffering “beatings.”
> “As a Black male, language like ‘afraid’ generally is code word for me,” ... Mr. Needham, who is gay and grew up in the Deep South, ... Ms. Oh and her lawyers have cited her own past: As a survivor of domestic abuse, she was particularly sensitive to tense interactions with male colleagues. She said she was troubled by Mr. Needham’s once referring to his predecessor as a “friend,” since she was one of the employees who had criticized him.
It's definitely happening in other organizations: https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-i....
(Three people have already posted comments with links to archived copies of this article.)
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/09/04/the-threat-from...
