Sotomayor rejected the New Haven firefighters' claim because it threatened to burn down civil rights

[usregimechange]

In 2003, the New Haven Fire Department decided to base promotions to the positions of captain and lieutenant primarily on a written exam. But the next year the city threw out the test results when all but one of the eligible candidates for promotion proved to be white. New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci, a high scorer on the test who is white, sued for reverse discrimination. His case is now before the Supreme Court in Ricci v. DeStefano. The case is getting extra play because 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's choice to take Justice David Souter's place on the Supreme Court, joined a brief opinion rejecting Ricci's appeal and then voted to deny rehearing of his case. Many commentators have championed Ricci's cause and disparaged Sotomayor for voting against him.

New Haven's decision may sound like blatant racial favoritism, but in fact the city rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that's inadvertent as well as intentional. Ricci's claim is that the city's effort to comply with Title VII is itself race discrimination (under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII itself).

This argument would undermine an important part of modern civil rights law. Some of Sotomayor's critics argue that, in the era of Obama, we no longer need such proactive policies to promote racial equality. But racism isn't a thing of the past yet. In fact, we haven't corrected the lingering effects of racism that is in the past. It's precisely because overt racism is no longer the main impediment to racial equality that the law against inadvertent discrimination is arguably now the most important part of civil rights law.

http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/


And there were other problems with the test the city used:


Testimony during oral arguments of this case before the Supreme Court.

[bettyellen]

1. so in this case conservatives would have preferred some activism and not following the law?

is that correct?

[blueclown]

3. The conservatives are going to try to strike down key provisions in Title VII. n/t

[bettyellen]

4. so they would want a juge to "be actvist" in this case? isn;t that what they are saying she

shouldn't do?
no sarcasm, i'm asking sincerely.

[ejpoeta]

7. activist = decision not in their favor.

[ejpoeta]

6. it's only activist if the decision doesn't go in their favor.

[DCBob]

2. I thought there was more to the story..

Thanks for posting. This needs to be publicized more.

[BostonTLover]

5. Lyndon B Johnson quote

"You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe that you have been completely fair"
- Lyndon B Johnson