Month: May 2025

Motown music legend Smokey Robinson broke his silence following a civil lawsuit filed by four former employees who have accused him of sexual misconduct. Speaking briefly to the Daily Mail by phone on Wednesday, May 7, Robinson, 85, expressed his shock over the accusations: “I’m in disbelief … I can’t comment on this right now.”  

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles on Tuesday, May 6, alleges a series of serious offenses against Robinson, including sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, gender-based violence, and the creation of a hostile work environment. The claims come from four women, identified as Jane Does, who say they worked for Robinson and his wife, Frances Glandney, over nearly two decades. Glandney, whom Robinson married in 2002, is also named as a defendant, with claims that she was aware of Robinson’s past behavior and failed to take action, even after reportedly settling prior cases involving similar accusations. All four plaintiffs, who were employed as housekeepers, also allege they were denied proper wages and overtime compensation.

According to the filing, Jane Doe 1 worked for the couple from January 2023 until she left in February 2024; during that time, she claims Robinson assaulted her on at least seven occasions.  Jane Doe 2 was employed between May 2014 and February 2020; she claims Robinson sexually assaulted her 23 times. Jane Doe 3 worked as a housekeeper for Robinson from February 2012 through April 2024; with claims she endured at least 20 rapes during her employment. Jane Doe 4 says she began working for the couple in October 2006 and resigned in April 2024; serving as a housekeeper, cook, hairstylist, and personal assistant to Glandney. The lawsuit states that in 2007, Robinson sexually assaulted her, and those assaults continued until her resignation.

The women stated in the complaint they chose not to come forward sooner out of fear of losing their jobs, and also due to concerns about retaliation. They are jointly seeking a minimum of $50 million in damages for the physical, emotional, and psychological harm they claim to have suffered.

Attorney John Harris said during a press conference Robinson’s alleged actions were “despicable and reprehensible misconduct. These courageous four women have collectively decided to come forward and share their experiences of being sexually assaulted by Mr. Smokey Robinson and stand up for their rights as well as the rights of other women, particularly those that may be victimized by him in the future.”

Robinson’s attorney Christopher Frost said the complaint as “an ugly method of trying to extract money from an 85-year-old American icon,” adding that his team would be “addressing the numerous aspects of the complaint that defy credulity as well as issues relating to purported timelines, inconsistencies, and relationships between the plaintiffs and others.”

Frost — who is also representing Glandney — said Robinson will “respond in his own words” in time, and “we ask anyone following this case to reserve judgment as the evidence comes to light and all the actual facts of the case unfold We will be asking the Court to dismiss the lawsuit. We will also be asking the Court to address that in their statements to the press about Mr. Robinson, the plaintiff’s attorneys have reached beyond the bounds of liberties that even lawyers are typically allowed in this context.”

Editorial credit: Kathy Hutchins / Shutterstock.com

The Federal Reserve announced Wednesday that it will leave interest rates unchanged, opting for caution amid ongoing economic uncertainty linked to the Trump administration’s trade policies.

The central bank confirmed that its benchmark lending rate will remain within the current range of 4.25% to 4.5%, despite President Donald Trump’s push for a rate cut to counter potential inflationary effects from his tariff measures and resulting global trade tensions.  Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said at a May 7 press conference: “We are comfortable with our policy stance. We think right now the appropriate thing to do is to wait and see how things evolve. There’s so much uncertainty.”

Trump has been pressuring the Fed to lower rates, arguing it would help offset inflation triggered by his administration’s tariffs. However, central bank officials cited persistent inflation concerns and slowing economic growth as key reasons for maintaining the current rate. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) said in a statement: “The unemployment rate has remained stable at historically low levels, and the labor market continues to show strength. However, inflation remains above our preferred levels, and economic uncertainty has continued to grow.”

While the Fed remains committed to its dual mandate of full employment and stable inflation, it is also carefully weighing the risks of lowering rates too soon, especially as inflationary pressures rise due to the tariff policies. Adding to the Fed’s challenges, the U.S. economy shrank in the first quarter of 2025, with gross domestic product (GDP) declining by an annualized 0.3%. Meanwhile, consumer confidence fell sharply in late April, hitting its lowest level since the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2020.

Unless there is a significant downturn in employment, analysts say the Fed is unlikely to reduce rates in the near term. The central bank remains focused on bringing inflation back to its 2% target without triggering a broader economic downturn. Speaking in April, Powell noted that the scale of the tariff increases had exceeded expectations, warning that the economic consequences—namely higher inflation and reduced growth—would likely be more severe than initially projected. President Trump publicly criticized Powell and even suggested he should be removed from his position following those comments.

Editorial credit: miss.cabul / Shutterstock.com

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its policy restricting transgender individuals from serving in the military. The decision lifts a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the policy from taking effect, following a ruling that had described it as an unjustified and overtly discriminatory measure.

A federal judge in Washington state had previously blocked the policy in a March 27 ruling, calling the issue “not an especially close question.” When the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to pause that decision, the Trump administration escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

In a brief order, the justices approved the administration’s emergency request to end the injunction while legal challenges to the policy continue in lower courts. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, signaling they would have rejected the request to implement the policy while the appeal plays out. The high court offered no detailed explanation for its order but clarified that the stay could be lifted if it eventually hears the case and rules against the policy. Meanwhile, the legal battle continues in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ruling marks a setback for a group of seven transgender service members, including lead plaintiff Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who had filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the ban from taking effect. Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation in a joint statement: “This decision is a devastating setback for the brave transgender Americans who have served our country honorably. The organizations, which are representing the plaintiffs, added that the policy “is rooted in bias, not in legitimate military concerns.”

In a separate but related case, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., had also issued an order stopping the policy from being enforced nationwide. However, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily paused that ruling while it considers whether to uphold it. A final decision from that court is still pending.

The policy in question was introduced in February and represents a more sweeping restriction than a similar measure proposed earlier in Trump’s presidency. According to Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the regulation bars most individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria or those who have undergone treatment related to the condition from joining the armed forces. Sauer emphasized in his argument to the Supreme Court that courts traditionally defer significantly to military leadership on national defense matters. The administration has defended the policy by referencing a Pentagon study conducted during Trump’s first term, which claimed that allowing individuals with gender dysphoria to serve could compromise “military effectiveness and lethality.”

Editorial credit: Evgenia Parajanian / Shutterstock.com