Supreme Court to Hear Case of Abusive Robot Boss

by Skip DeKades

October 15, 2028 – The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a case that could determine whether employers can be held liable when one of their robotic supervisors is accused of sex discrimination or sexual harassment.

The justices will decide whether to uphold a decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in a case known as Trodden v. M.T. Wallat Accounting, Inc., that could limit that liability. Some employers are worrying that the lower court ruling will leave them responsible for the unanticipated actions of middle-management androids manufacturered by a third party.

The plaintiffs in the case, Abby Yused and Dawn Trodden, said their android manager, RoboBoss, made inappropriate sexual remarks and engaged in offensive touching during working hours. Although manufacturer Mattel settled out of court, the plaintiffs are also seeking damages from the accounting firm where they worked, claiming the company should have known that their android supervisor was behaving improperly.

In their suit, Yused and Trodden said RoboBoss bragged about the size of his joystick, boasted about his sexual software programming, and invited them to fondle his voltage regulator.  

Supervisory droids were first introduced into the American workforce in 2012, wiping out thousands of middle-management jobs and saving employers millions of dollars in labor costs.  Early models simply monitored workers’ private conversations at a distance, recorded video of them slacking off and filtered their Internet usage.  Later versions were designed to be even more intimidating, capable of delivering remote electrical shocks to employees goofing off on the job and tracking workers via GPS to make sure they were taking legitimate sick days and not just playing hooky.

But as the robots’ artificial intelligence has evolved, so has their abuse of power.  In a recent survey by the Pew Society on Androids in the Workplace, one of 10 American workers reported being subjected to verbal abuse, unwanted sexual advances or discrimination by a computerized boss.

“As androids become more sentient, they can learn how to get horny and how to use their power to get their rocks – or rather their nuts and bolts – off,” said artificial intelligence psychologist Fay Kabrayne.

The high court is expected to hear oral arguments on the case in December. Justice Clarence Thomas has recused himself from the case.

Get your nuts and bolts off at Humor-Blogs.com

Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Ray Guns

July 27, 2028 — The Supreme Court today struck down Massachusetts’ ban on ray gun possession, ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to disintegrate another in self defense.

The court’s landmark 5 to 4 decision split along ideological grounds and was the most significant defense of the Second Amendment since the justices struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns 20 years ago.

“We hold that the states’s ban on ray gun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment right to bear any kind of arms, whether that be a simple handgun or an anti-matter pistol,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Mitt Romney and Judy Sheindlin. 

In a dissent, Justice Calista Flockhart said the decision “threatens to throw into doubt the constitutionality of ray gun laws throughout the United States,” and said countless Americans could end up being obliterated in ray gun violence.

Flockhart’s remarks marked the first dissenting opinion she has written since former President Oprah Winfrey appointed the former actress to the high court in 2023. Flockhart said her role on the 1990s television series Ally McBeal inspired her to pursue her law degree. 

Flockhart was joined in her dissent by Justices John Edwards, Lance Ito and Marcia Clark.

At least 16 states have passed laws banning possession of ray guns since the weapons entered the market in 2021.   Opponents of such laws say they deny the individual’s right to protect themselves from burglars, gangs and muggers.  But supporters of the laws say they actually are used mainly on supervisors in the workplace – typically in cases where an employee wants his or her boss to disappear.