• Home
  • News
  • Supreme Court Rules for White Firefighters in Reverse Bias Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules for White Firefighters in Reverse Bias Case

Posted Jun 29, 2009 8:22 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on behalf of white firefighters challenging a decision to throw out a promotional exam because no blacks got top scores.

The 5-4 ruling holds that a fear of disparate impact claims by minorities does not justify a decision to toss the test by the city of New Haven, Conn., SCOTUSblog reports in a live blog account. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

"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," Kennedy wrote, according to an account by the Washington Post.

"We conclude 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 disparate-impact statute." The city of New Haven could not meet that threshold of proof, he said.

The high court ruling overturns a panel decision by the New York City-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that included Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated to replace retiring Justice David H. Souter.

Supreme Court litigator Tom Goldstein, writing at SCOTUSblog, says the majority appears cautious to avoid criticizing the 2nd Circuit ruling.

“I am struck by the extent to which the majority opinion largely treats the court of appeals’ ruling as a nonevent,” Goldstein writes. “To the contrary, Justice Kennedy almost seemingly goes out of his way not to criticize the decision below, notwithstanding that the Supreme Court takes a dramatically different view of the legal question.”

New Haven had argued its decision to abandon the test was justified because it could face disparate impact claims by minorities under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A concurrence by Justice Antonin Scalia says the opinion “merely postpones the evil day on which the court will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent aloud, AP reports. She was joined by Justices Souter, Stephen G. Breyer and John Paul Stevens. "The court’s order and opinion, I anticipate, will not have staying power," Ginsburg wrote in dissent.

Ginsburg questioned the majority’s “enigmatic standard” requiring “a strong basis in evidence” for a disparate impact claim before cities may take race-based action. “One is left to wonder what cases would meet the standard and why the court is so sure this case does not,” she wrote.

"The court stacks the deck further by denying respondents any chance to satisfy the newly announced strong-basis-in-evidence standard. When this court formulates a new legal rule, the ordinary course is to remand and allow the lower courts to apply the rule in the first instance. I see no good reason why the court fails to follow that course in this case."

The case is Ricci v. DeStefano.

Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, criticized the decision in a press release. “We are shocked by the decision and we will continue our work to preserve the vital protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” she said. “Like Justice Ginsburg, we anticipate that the decision ‘will not have staying power.’”

Additional coverage:

Reuters: "US top court rules against city on race promotion"

CBS News: "Court Rules For Firefighters In Ricci Case"'

New Haven Independent: "Supreme Court Overturns City On Ricci"

The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times: "Early Reactions to the Ruling in Ricci"

Comments

1.

J.D.
Jun 29, 2009 8:45 AM CST

Supreme Court: Sotomayor is wrong and racist.

Flag this comment

2.

bfg
Jun 29, 2009 9:08 AM CST

The 2nd Circuit decided not to hear the case without comment.  How does that make the judges on the 2nd circuit racist?

Flag this comment

3.

Rath
Jun 29, 2009 9:24 AM CST

Bfg - I, and many others, have come to the conclusion that J.D. is posting from an alternate reality in which whatever mindless drivel he posts, based on ignorance and an unwillingness or inability to actually read source material in its entirety (or at all), and an ignorance of basic legal principals, and jurisprudence in U.S. law, is the truth and gospel in such alternate reality.

Flag this comment

4.

J.D.
Jun 29, 2009 9:46 AM CST

Sotomayor found the lower court’s ruling a “thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion.”

The activist group known as the New York Times called Sotomayor’s decision “remarkably cursory” and “baffling.”

Sotomayor’s mentor, Judge Cabranes said her opinion “contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case” and added that “this perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

And now the Supreme Court has overturned Sotomayor.

So much for being a “wise Latina woman.”

Flag this comment

5.

T.R.
Jun 29, 2009 9:53 AM CST

@ bfg, Rath:

Please, don’t feed the trolls.

Flag this comment

6.

B. McLeod
Jun 29, 2009 9:57 AM CST

Ah yes.  Always good to actually read the opinion, including the dissents.  This was a close case, in which the 2nd Circuit narrowly rejected rehearing en banc, and the Supreme Court itself split 5/4.  Justice Souter, whom Judge Sotomayor will replace, was numbered in the dissent.  I do not see the result of this case as having great significance for the nomination.

Flag this comment

7.

Equality
Jun 29, 2009 10:53 AM CST

The ruling in this case is very appropriate—and way past due.  Scalia is absolutely correct that a war between “disparate impact” and equal protection is looming.  Affirmative-action (like Sec. 5 of the Voting Rights Act) has served its purpose and it’s time to treat people as individuals with individual strengths and merit.  The only way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

Flag this comment

8.

Sam
Jun 29, 2009 11:16 AM CST

reverse racisim and discrimination against the white man will not be tolerated….it is high time to end all affirmative action programs and let people be judged solely on their qualifications for the position in which they are applying.

great day for the country

Flag this comment

9.

J.D.
Jun 29, 2009 11:19 AM CST

Be careful #7. You’re sounding too much like MLK, Jr. and the liberals around here DO NOT like his little dream.

Also, this ruling was a big loss for those filing briefs in favor of discrimination, including the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Sotomayor’s racial separatist-sounding group “LatinoJustice.”

Also on the losing side were a host of other racialist groups such as the Asian American Justice Center, the Asian American Institute, and the Asian Law Caucus, International Association of Hispanic Firefighters, and the NAACP.

You see, these groups NEED to perpetuate a race-focused society and seek to stir up racial strife—without it, they have no reason to exist. They exhibit a very sad, sad m.o. but these groups view racial conflict as job security.

Flag this comment

10.

Useless JD Comments
Jun 29, 2009 11:50 AM CST

Useless JD’s comments again, perhaps the ruling from Supreme Court shows the the SC is consisted of racist and WHITE, and the ruling is precise the reason that we need more minority in SC.

Flag this comment

11.

Equality
Jun 29, 2009 12:10 PM CST

#10, you’re comment is senseless and stupid for at least three reasons.  First, the sole black member of the Supreme Court sided with the majority and is a stauch OPPONENT of affirmative action racism.  Second, the decision was a close 5-4 split.  Third, the ruling, to my dismay, did not strike down any of the strictures of Title VII or similar laws but merely held that the City of New Haven did not meet the requisite standard to dismiss the results of the test under the “disparate impact” analysis.  All 9 members of the Supreme Court are highly qualified jurists regardless of their race or gender.  Artificial “diversity” is no less than blatant favoritism and does not help advance contemporary society.

Flag this comment

12.

George Patsourakos
Jun 29, 2009 12:17 PM CST

The U.S. Supreme Court was correct in ruling on behalf of white firefighters challenging a decision to throw out a promotional exam because no blacks got top scores. To have ruled otherwise, would have been promoting discrimination in reverse. The time has now come for Americans to obtain jobs, promotions, etc.because of their qualification—not because because of the color of their skin or ethnic background. The fact that Justice Clarence Thomas—an African American—voted with the majority further indicates that the U.S. must have a zero tolerance for discrimination in reverse.

Flag this comment

13.

B. McLeod
Jun 29, 2009 12:18 PM CST

If Dr. King’s dream seems “little” to anyone today, that can only be a sign of the progress the nation has made.  For the benefit of those who were not present in 1963, it did not seem “little” then.  Yet, most, if not all, of the specifics cited by Dr. King as urgently in need of reform in 1963 have receded into history.  If Dr. King could see the United States of today, I think he would be very pleased.  Whether it would meet his vision of “the promised land,” I cannot well say.  However, for those among us who have lived through those decades, the extent and degree of progress toward equal opportunity in such a short span of years has been truly remarkable.

Flag this comment

14.

Useless JD Comments
Jun 29, 2009 12:33 PM CST

#11 is 100% correct on my previous comments.  I merely want to show that how baseless was JD’s comments as well.  Anyone can make a baseless and uesless statement like that without any logic…..

Flag this comment

15.

T.R.
Jun 29, 2009 2:20 PM CST

@ Equality:

I like your post.  However, I think your first point lacks some persuasion.  There is a widely-held school of thought that holds, regarding matters of affirmative action, Justice Thomas “doth protest too much.”

Flag this comment

16.

Jim ' 2009-06-29-2 1616 -0400
Jun 29, 2009 2:38 PM CST

Mr M, you are quite correct. I was present in the 40’s-70’s. The degree of ugly racism was appalling.
Here, the city would have been just as wrong to trash the test, were all the blacks to have passed and the whites to have failed.
_______________________________________
#13 B. McLeod - ~1430 Mon. 6/29/09
“.... For the benefit of those who were not present in 1963, it did not seem “little” then. 
” * * * *
“However, for those among us who have lived through those decades, the extent and degree of progress toward equal opportunity in such a short span of years has been truly remarkable.”

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.