Supreme Court rules White firefighters discriminated against

**troublemaker_42** · 06-30-2009, 09:58 AM

High court backs firefighters in reverse discrimination suit - CNN.com

Quote:

The U.S. Supreme Court sided Monday with white firefighters in a workplace discrimination lawsuit, a divisive case over the role race should play in job advancement.

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling backs firefighters in a reverse discirmination case.

1 of 2 In the split 5-4 vote, a majority of the justices ruled that the city of New Haven, Connecticut, improperly threw out the results of promotional exams that officials said left too few minorities qualified.

One Latino and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the city subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions.

A group of 20 mostly white firefighters sued, claiming reverse discrimination. High court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor heard the case on her federal appeals court last year and sided with the city.

The Supreme Court was being asked to decide whether there was a continued need for special treatment for minorities, or whether enough progress has been made to make existing laws obsolete, especially in a political atmosphere in which an African-American occupies the White House.

At issue was whether the city intentionally discriminated -- in violation of both federal law and the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
"The city rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "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."

In a dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg questioned the fairness of the test, which was 60 percent written and 40 percent oral.

"Relying so heavily on pencil-and-paper exams to select firefighters is a dubious practice," Ginsburg said, calling the majority ruling "troubling."

"Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form. The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold," she said.

Key plaintiff Frank Ricci and others took promotional exams in 2003 for lieutenant and captain positions that had become available in New Haven.

When the results came back, city attorneys expressed concern about the results, and the New Haven corporation counsel -- after several public hearings -- refused to certify the test, and no promotions were given.

The city said that under a federal civil rights law known as Title VII, employers must ban actions such as promotion tests that would have a "disparate impact" on a protected class, such as a specified race or gender.

The Obama administration took a nuanced position on the appeal. A Justice Department lawyer told the high court that while the federal government supported the city's discretion to nullify the test results, it also believed the lawsuit should be allowed to proceed on a limited basis.

Kennedy argued that "the process was open [and] fair" and that the city officials "were careful to ensure broad racial participation in the design of the test itself and its administration."

He added that "race-based action like the city's in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable" under the law dealing with "disparate impact."

Kennedy said the city had not met that threshold.

The case has received added attention because Sotomayor was on the appellate court that dismissed the appeal.

Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting New Haven's move to throw out the results.

In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority that denied a rehearing of the case by the full court.

Legal analysts said they expect Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee will want to ask about her role in that case as well as her comments about ethnicity and the bench.

Thoughts? I support the court's decision. Whether its fighting to save my home, or someone performing open-heart surgery on a loved one.... I want the people working on my behalf, or the public's behalf, to be the most qualified people possible, not arbitrarily sleected (or NOT sleected) because of race or other considerations. The jobs should go to the best person who is qualified to perform the duties, and factors such as race and diversity shouldn't keep the most qualified people from the job or from advancing in their job. AS a white male, I've never been a fan of affirmative action, and this case demonstrates precisely why.... While "affirmative action" was invented to combat discrimination, oftentimes, it simply changed who was being discriminated against. I don't have the answers to racism, but I can assure you it won't be eneded by giving minorities jobs other people are better qualified for. No matter what my skin color may be, I'd want to know I was chosen because someone believed I'd be the best person for the job, not because someone thought the workforce of my company needed more color. Is it too much I ask to be judged on my individual merits (or lack thereof) and not my skin color? I applaud the Court's decision, and believe they more correctly came to a decsion than Sotomayor's court previously ruled on the issue. I see it as common sense, but I'm sure I'll be attacked by others who believe I'm a closet racist who simply wants to oppress the minority. of course, if everyone is on eqaul footing, the proposal wouldn't oppress anyone, it just doesn't give unfair advantages based on skin color.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Supreme Court rules in favour of cannabis grower	420	Marijuana Mashup	0	03-06-2008 12:01 PM
Hawaii Supreme Court Rules Against Religious Marijuana Use	420	Marijuana Mashup	0	10-03-2007 06:20 AM
HI: Hawaii Supreme Court Rules Against Religious Marijuana Use	Hashishi	The Drug War Headline News	6	10-02-2007 09:00 PM
Hawaii Supreme Court Rules Against Religious Marijuana Use	420	Marijuana Mashup	0	10-02-2007 10:51 AM
Hawaii Supreme Court Rules Against Religious Marijuana Use	420	Marijuana Mashup	0	10-01-2007 12:00 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Advertising Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Hot Products:

Orange Krush - Legal Bud

Black Magic Solid Smokes

Vapir One Vaporizer

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)