High Court Rules for White Firefighters

[Beacool]

By MARK SHERMAN, AP

WASHINGTON (June 29) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."

Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.

Kennedy's opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.

But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with "indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.

http://news.aol.com/article/supreme-court-firefighters/546519?icid

[Adelante]

1. This always seemed to me a tricky case

There were arguments for and against both sides that made some sense.

[Peacetrain]

2. It was dodgy that is for sure.. Makes me glad I am not a judge

[WeDidIt]

16. It was a no-brainer for the Circuit Court

They simply upheld existing precedent.

Were an identical case to come before the same three judges today, the ruling would reflect the new precedent.

[Beacool]

3. I agree with SCOTUS' ruling.

We were actually discussing it at work (everybody is an attorney) and nobody dissented. It seems that a lot of effort went into making the test fair and it was a jittery city council who scrapped it out of fear of potential lawsuits from minorities.

If the test was fair, then I don't see why these people should be denied their promotion.

:shrug:

[Mr. Blonde]

4. That was my thought

how badly did this backfire on New Haven? In trying to avoid a lawsuit they end up going to the SC.

[Demit]

5. From what I read, the test had some pretty weird questions in it.

I was reading a blog, can't remember whose, where some of the questions were presented, and the discussion involved legal folk and people familiar with what firefighters/firefighting supervisors need to know. There was one question with ambiguous wording (something about the length of hose you need to pull at a fire). Apparently the city didn't vet the test well enough, which they could and should have done beforehand but only realized later, was the consensus. Stupid all around.

[masuki bance]

9. From Justice Kennedy's majority decision-

"...here is no evidence—let alone the required strong basis in evidence—that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions...."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1428.ZO.html

[Demit]

19. And Justice Ginsberg's opinion disagreed

from your same link. Thanks for providing that, btw. Ginsberg's takedown of Alito's reasoning was delicious.

[Beacool]

10. Maybe so, but the firefighters shouldn't be punished

for the city's stupidity. They passed the test fair and square and earned their promotion.

;-)

[Raineyb]

26. They're not being punished

And if the test is not fair there's no fair and square. And if the city removes the test from consideration then the test isn't a factor there's no right to benefit from a test that's been withdrawn from consideration. At least it wasn't until the right wing asshat judicial activist "justices" got their hands on it.

Those five never miss a chance to try to screw over minorities or undermine efforts remedy past discrimination.

[BluegrassDem]

12. Did you have any discussions with your black co-workers?

Or was your discussion group only white? Just wondering. That seems to be how the fault lines of opinion run.

[Beacool]

13. We are a Fortune 100

Our folks span most races and ethnic groups. To answer your question, yes there were 2 black people present, a Hispanic and an Indian. It wasn't an official discussion, just a group of us talking before a meeting started.

Besides, so what? What's the difference between the test taking capabilities of a black firefighter as opposed to a white one?

:shrug:

[BluegrassDem]

15. If that black co-worker had spoken out against the white firefighters

he would've been fired. Period. That's why he agreed. Sure, he wouldn't have been fired for that, but they would've got rid of him for some other reason. What a stupid discussion to have in a workplace! Do you actually think people would tell you honestly what they think?

[Beacool]

17. That's nonsense!!!!

Why would anyone be fired over a discussion over a SCOTUS ruling? We have black people at all levels of the corporation from near the very top (we have yet to have a woman or a minority CEO) to the bottom. We are also not ageist, there are some people here who are past the age of retirement.

[uponit7771]

29. No it's not. Remember, some supervisors are RUSHPublicans and are really fuckin

...stupid enough to put their personal beliefs etc in front of the greater good of the company.

Greg Slauslan(sp) from the Bush admin should be a tell tale of what minorities face everyday from freeper like bastards.

[joeglow3]

37. You must work at some shitty companies

I can honestly say that would never happen at any of the companies I have worked for. In fact, in exit interviews in 2 jobs (out of 2), one of the questions asked is what more the company can do to recruit more minorities.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. That's a fairly racist comment you made there. (nt)

[goclark]

45. good point nt

[spooky3]

21. the employer is obliged to show that there is substantial evidence

of job relatedness ("business necessity"), when disparate impact is in evidence (both sides agreed DI was in evidence). Usually this is demonstrated by a showing of a statistical relationship between test scores and later job performance, but there are also other ways to demonstrate job-relatedness. The employer did not have that statistical evidence and the other evidence they had was mixed.

Even when the evidence of job relatedness is strong, the plaintiff has the opportunity to present evidence that there are other tests that produce less adverse impact and that are equally or more predictive of job performance. In this case there was a lot of such evidence discussed (see the Ginsburg dissent, which someone else in this thread already linked).

This is a Gore v. Bush decision.

[Raineyb]

24. Right because the two black people present are going to be so comfortable discussing

this in a group of predominantly white people. Not bloody likely.

And it didn't take you long to presume deficiencies on an entire group of firefighters did it?

[Empowerer]

49. The reaction to this case from the beginning would have been altogether different

if the shoe were on the other foot and only black firefighters scored high enough to merit promotion while no white firefighters made the cut.

It would have been widely accepted that there was a problem with the test - in fact, anyone who claimed that the white firefighters just weren't as qualified would have been shouted down and then laughed out of the room. Those now screaming "reverse discrimination" would be demanding that the test be thrown out. And when the test was thrown out and the black firefighters sued, the conservatives on the Supreme Court would NEVER have twisted themselves into knots rewriting Title VII (you know, "legislating from the bench") to ensure the black firefighters' promotions were reinstated.

[Raineyb]

50. You're right. And you know what the really messed up part of this is?

This is a board of people who are supposed to be our allies. Can you imagine what would be said on a different message board where there is no pretense at respect for black people?

[Raineyb]

27. That means nothing

I worked at a fortune 100 company and there were lots of black and brown people around. Until you got to a certain level then not so much.

They also promoted a rather young man to a supervisory position that they wouldn't give to a woman of color who had been doing the job for over a year before she threatened to file a complaint because they left the position empty for so long but wouldn't consider her for it despite the fact that she was doing the job. So spare me the nonsense about the Fortune 100 companies as though they are incapable of discriminating. They are perfectly capable.

[spooky3]

20. My guess is that you and your co-workers are not familiar with the Griggs v. Duke Power landmark

Supreme Court case (1971). This is the precedent that should have been followed in this case and was not. The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which amended prior law, strengthened this precedent and emphasized that Griggs was consistent with Congressional intent.

Ginsburg's dissent is a must - read, to help understand what was wrong with the majority's ruling. She really does a great job laying it out in terms everyone can understand.

[woolldog]

23. So what is your response to the points in Ginsburg's dissent?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-1428.ZD.html

[Raineyb]

33. :crickets: n/t

[uponit7771]

42. Loud crickets too....

[invictus]

6. SCOTUS ruled appropriately.

nt

[Jivenwail]

7. I am not an attorney

And don't pretend to know the complexities of the law in any way. However as an HR professional for over 15 years with expertise in the areas of federal and state hiring requirements and compliance, I can see both sides of this argument. However, as an employer forced by the government into affirmative action and having to prove that hiring practices follow the law in hiring minorities, I can see New Haven's response. Not knowing specifics as it regards their affirmative action plan, if there was anything that gave New Haven pause (concern) that their hiring practices might come under further scrutiny should only whites and one hispanic be promoted based on the exam, then perhaps they may have reacted accordingly in denying the whites/hispanic their promotions based solely on the exam. It is not to say what they did was right or wrong, as I said I'm not an attorney. But I certainly see the prevailing reason in Justice Ginsburg's dissent. As employers we are forced by the government into proving our affirmative action in hiring minorities and to prove that there is no disparate impact. Mindful of that, it would be interesting to know (however highly unlikely) what New Haven's affirmative action hiring practices look like. And I will say, legal word smithing aside...it wouldn't surprise me that the repubs on the Court took this opinion in favor of the white firefighters because it embarrasses both Obama and Sotomayor. And Roberts is well known for his consistency in ruling in favor of white men.

[LittleBlue]

8. I also agree with the SCOTUS' ruling

Whether they had a vested right to promotion, they have a right to be given equal consideration regardless of what ethnicity they happen to be.

IMO, the racial (and better yet, the socio-economic) equality movement should be about giving more opportunities to underprivileged groups as an additional cost to society, rather than at the cost to a rather unfortunate individual.

[Yukari Yakumo]

11. I'll agree with SCOTUS on this one

It seems that New Haven took the concepts of AA way, way, WAY too far.

[BluegrassDem]

14. It's kinda funny to see white people outraged now, but not a peep after decades of racism

from the very same fire departmenet. That fire dept had a bad history of blatant racism against minorities, which is why the city instituted the affirmative action policies in the first place. The number of white men aggrieved in this fire dept. pales in comparison to the number of black men who were blatantly discriminated against. But then again, white skin is more valued in this society, sadly, so it's only a big deal when the white fire fighters got pissed.

[CTLawGuy]

18. so 20 individuals are responsible for all that racism against blacks

in the fire department?

[uponit7771]

31. No the fire department is and the accountability is spread throughout.

[woolldog]

22. bingo...nt

[Raineyb]

25. Ain't that the damn truth though?

Discrimination is really really wrong when white people perceive that they are affected by it. When it affects the rest of us? Not so much.

[goclark]

34. I'm African American and have not kept up with this case

However, I do know that Los Angeles, a "liberal" city has had Civil Rights issues within the Fire Department forever.

It is really hard to break the color line and not just work together but "sleep" and "eat" together for several days a week sometimes.


There is a wonderful fire station nearby and the FireMEN(no women/why is that allowed?) are really wonderful...

Right before my mother was going to celebrate her 90th birthday, I went over to ask if they could stop by our house to wish her a happy birthday.

They happily agreed to unless there was a call for them.

They did it!

We have a picture of white/black firefighters singing Happy Birthday at our house. We walked Mom out to the Truck as they turned on their sirens and waved goodbye. What a thrill!

Hope the decisions in the Supreme Court case represent fairness for everyone in the future.

PS/ As a thank you I stopped by the Station with a homemade cake.
They were so appreciative and invited me in to talk to them for a few minutes.

Guess what!
I was shocked to see all of the 4 on duty that day were --- African American. :shrug:

[Raineyb]

35. I live in "liberal" NYC

And our fire department is very lily white. I think I'd about drop dead from shock if I ever went to the firehouse and saw that all the men on duty were black.

You are a lot more optimistic than I am about this Supreme Court. We've got Uncle Clarance who basically dares people to bring up cases on certain topics just so he can overturn precedent. This current case sadly enough is a very good example of his attitude, and frankly unless we do something about the five right wingers we're going to be in quite some trouble. There can be no justice coming form the Supreme court with those five in lockstep. And we know that a little thing like precedent means very little if anything to the activist justices. I suppose we could hope one of them drops dead but then we'd be sinking to their level. So I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. Couldn't that be said for any race or ethnicity?

When was the last time you saw Latinos standing up for African Americans, or African Americans standing up for Asian Americans, etc. etc.?

[Raineyb]

40. You must not look very many places.

There are plenty of Latinos standing up for African Americans etc. That the mainstream media chooses not to bother to cover it as it doesn't comport with the story they want to tell doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. Then you must also not look very far for white people standing up for other races.

Frankly, I think it's rather ugly to use vast generalizations of white people to depict us all as racist assholes. It's really no better than what you're condemning.

[Raineyb]

43. Actually I was referring to this place.

I have seen plenty of examples of white people standing up for other races. It's not evident in this thread however. And I did not call all white people racist assholes. When I call someone a racist asshole I will use the words "racist asshole" I don't do that dance. What I am saying is that all these people claiming to be celebrating a victory for racial equality in this case are merely perpetuating the usual white privilege. A good number of them talk a good game when it's in favor of white people but when it comes to black and brown people suddenly they see no bias. That's bullshit and I'm not inclined to spare anyone's little feelings by couching it in prettier language.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. In that case, you were not clear

I'm quite certain that you know clarity is necessary when dealing with issues of race. I see references in your posts and the posts you agree with to "society" and the city, but not to DU or "this place".

I apologize that I inferred something that I shouldn't have from your comments. They do, however, emanate a lot of anger and hostility towards a fairly non-specific group of individuals. Still, I should not have jumped to that conclusion - that was improper.

[Raineyb]

53. I have no idea what you're talking about

My hostility is aimed at a very specific group of individuals and a very specific mindset although I don't think I've been hostile in this thread at all. Unless you think it's appropriate for me to just sit back and smile while an entire ethnic group is written off as less intelligent. Because that's basically what's being said when we talk about this test. Empowerer said it much better than I did so I'd point you to her post. The truth of the matter is, if a test had excluded white people the way this test excluded black people from consideration, we wouldn't be having this discussion because it would be a given that there was something wrong with the test. But since it excluded black people we get explanations that maybe the white people studied harder and other not so generous explanations that are a nanometer from crossing the line into saying that black people are just not as smart that's why they didn't do well on the test. I think any anger and hostility (which frankly I have not displayed in this thread) would be warranted and rightfully directed at any jackass who would spout such a theory. It's the same line of bullshit reasoning that had these white men complain about being discriminated against because a test was thrown out. It's not as if the test was used for some and not others. These men are so entitled that they think they ought to benefit from an obviously flawed test. And yes I'm saying it's flawed without seeing it. How do I know because apparently it's geared so black people don't do as well on it as evidenced by the fact that no black person qualified for the position based on this test. I'm giving black people the same benefit of the doubt that the "reverse discrimination" crowd would give a test that excluded white people. Why? Because I, unlike the "reverse discrimination" bigots don't assume that black people are inherently less intelligent than white people.

And while I'm at it there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" that is a bullshit bit of Orwellian newspeak. It's a line used by those who are enraged that their white skin doesn't have as much privilege attached to it as it used to. Not that there's no privilege mind you because there still is but a small bit of that privilege has been taken away and they're crying like spoiled children who've had their fifth candy bar of the day taken away from them. I have no patience for them at all. Of course if I were posting on a conservative message board (I would be a damn fool but I digress) I wouldn't be surprised or nearly as disgusted by this. It's expected. What pisses me off is that this is a board of people who are supposed to be allies of the black community yet you hear the same not so subtle insult of black people and our intelligence and somehow it's expected that we pretend we didn't hear it? Why? Because you're not Republicans? You'll have to do better than that.

[Willo]

46. Actually it can't be said because people of color are more complex than that.

There are jamaican asians, latino asians, south african asians, latino indians, african indians, to name a few.

So in truth, people of color often stand up for other people of color. But, when white americans tell you to check one of five ethnicities as they understand them to be or "other". These complexities get lost.

The question is how would you know that a Latino stood up for an African American? What would tell you who was who?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. Are white people all the same to you?

Or do you think that when you skin gets pale that all those complexities get checked at the door? Let me be the first to tell you - they don't.

[Willo]

52. In following the flow of the conversation, starting with #14

I don't understand why you asked this question. For the record, I had no idea of your ethnicity and my response was not meant to be taken as a personal barb. Maybe I didn't respond to your previous question accurately but I answered what you asked. Getting back to the topic:

There is more discrimination and abuse in this country, supplied on a daily basis by whites towards people of color, otherwise labeled "minorities" (a term I can't stand). It is because of that commonality you will find that Latinos do stand up for African Americans and vice versa. It is not a rarity. In fact, it is more common than you might know because people of color face the same unnecessary problems stemming from the same (white) sources. So, no, if you want to include white people (whatever country they call home), it cannot be said that discrimination is perceived as really, really wrong when it comes to any race or ethnicity.

My point in a question: Which people, believing they were treated unfairly, would likely use the term "reverse discrimination"?

[uponit7771]

30. Right

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

28. this may sound dumb

but I have been curious if the African American fire fighters can now sue for discrimination?

[uponit7771]

32. Yes, based of cases expressed earlier which the SCOTUS didn't rule for or against

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

36. thanks

the plot thickens.

[Thothmes]

48. Thank So,

best if they could prove the test was biased.

[BluegrassDem]

54. I guess this does clear the way for the African-Americans to sue the city?

I really hope they do. I'm sure some lawyer is going to launch a big lawsuit against the city. I hope they do, and I hope they get paid big bucks out of it.

[MadMaddie]

51. It was a 5 - 4 Ruling so it was not unanimous.

The 5 of course were Roberts and his followers and the 5 Ginsberg and team.

There are many companys that can help create tests and vet those tests. The city sounds like they dropped the ball on this.

[harry_pothead]

55. I along with my liberal family agree with the ruling too.

Except we don't buy the BS GOP talking points on Sotomayor that they're trying to pull out of this. Sotomayor was following prior SCOTUS precedent. The SCOTUS can reverse their previous precedent if warranted, but a lower appellate court cannot.