U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to Consider Firefighters’ Reverse Bias Claims
Posted Apr 10, 2009 6:33 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider later this month when the government can use race as a factor in its hiring and promotion decisions.
The reverse discrimination suit, Ricci v. DeStefano, was filed by white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who passed a promotional exam, only to have the results thrown out because no blacks got top scores, the Christian Science Monitor reports. The plaintiffs claim violation of constitutional equal protection guarantees and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The case is scheduled for argument on April 22. It will give the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. an opportunity to issue its first major decision on racial discrimination in employment, the New York Times reports.
The Los Angeles Times says the court’s decision could change hiring and promotion policies for public employees—and possibly for private workers.
In a 2007 case involving education, Roberts wrote the majority opinion holding that public schools improperly used race to decide school assignments. “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote.
The Obama administration filed a brief supporting New Haven, saying the city could throw out the test results if they had "gross exclusionary effects on minorities,” according to the Los Angeles Times. About 37 percent of New Haven’s population is black, according to 2000 censure figures. But 32 percent of the city’s entry-level firefighters are black and 15 percent of supervisory firefighters are black, according to 2007 figures.
A federal judge sided with the city, saying no one was harmed since no one was promoted, the New York Times story says. A panel of the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and the en banc appeals court refused a rehearing on a 7-6 vote.
The case highlights a conflict in Title VII that bars employers from using hiring and promotional standards that have a disparate impact on the basis of race, the Los Angeles Times story says. Workplace Prof Blog puts the conundrum this way: “Is a decision not to create a disparate impact really race discrimination in disguise?”
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Apr 10, 2009 7:37 AM CST
Of course, if the “disparate impact” is due to such factors as the poorly-scoring persons actually being less-qualified, no test will resolve it. If a fire department cannot find a test that does not have a “disparate impact,” it is permanantly barred from making promotions?
Flag this comment
J.D.
Apr 10, 2009 8:17 AM CST
Clearly, the Left wants exams that mean nothing where everyone gets the same score. This has been going on with the SATs for years. It’s a type of socialism.
We should have confidence that when we call 911, competent people will arrive on our doorstep. But the Left thinks incompetents and invalids should be running everything, even if it means a risk to your life.
Flag this comment
squanto
Apr 10, 2009 8:17 AM CST
For the last time, it is not a claim of “reverse discrimination” it is a claim of discrimination, pure and simple. It is wrong and cuts against the principal of equal opportunity regardless of race of the individuals it is exercised against.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 10, 2009 11:34 AM CST
I can’t speak for “the Left,” but sometimes, I think incompetents ARE running everything.
Flag this comment
New Haven kind of sucks
Apr 12, 2009 12:28 PM CST
New Haven, Conn. is about 50% black. The two years I lived there, I saw exactly one non-white cop. (You see lots of cops on the streets of New Haven. Darien it ain’t.)
You’ll have to excuse me for believing there just might be issues with the hiring of non-white public safety officers in that town.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Apr 12, 2009 11:33 PM CST
#5 apparently did not trouble to read the story before posting. Census figures show New Haven 37% black, and the fire department entry level firefighters 32% black.
Flag this comment
Never been to New Haven
Apr 13, 2009 6:23 AM CST
Poster 5 didn’t say when he/she lived there other than to imply it was in the past—maybe that means New Haven has made some progress in hiring public safety officers (firefighters at least) who are more representative of the community. Sounds like it to me, since entry level firefighters are 32% black and supervisors are only 15% black. Since it takes some time (as well as other credentials and qualifications, to be sure) to become a supervisor, I’m concluding that it used to be a lot harder for a black person to get hired as a firefighter in New Haven.
Flag this comment
Cameron
Apr 22, 2009 6:49 AM CST
#5’s comment relies on a couple of false premises. First, the premise that a disproportionate number of white police officers does not indicate that there is discrimination at work. Is the number of white police officers disproportionate compared to the New Haven population or disproportionate to the number of cadets vying to become police officers? Regarding discrimination, the latter consideration is material, the former less so. The second false premise is that police hiring and the fire department’s lieutenant’s exam are somehow related. They aren’t. I lived in New Haven for four years, but cannot claim, with any intellectual seriousness, that I have some insight into the public services hiring practices.
Flag this comment
hj
Apr 22, 2009 11:19 AM CST
Look at the UNited Stated Workforce and Development numbers for those employed in the Fire service and who live outside of the urban city limits. Stop complaining as you drive back to your suburbs racking up urban city payroll dollars. Whites in civil service are acting out of fear and trying to protect the good old boy network, where high school graduate white boys who did not go to college, can still have jobs in fire, police and union labor type jobs. They know they get copies of the test. They have a strong sense of entitlement that has been a long standing aspect of institutionalized racism.
Flag this comment
Jake
Apr 22, 2009 1:34 PM CST
I think some of the speed and agility tests used by professional sports organizations have “gross exclusionary effects” on whites. I am hoping we can do away with these unfair tests so that everyone has an equal opportunity to play in the NBA, NFL, MLB, etc. But wait, that would mean these organizations would be forced to draft and retain lesser-qualified individuals instead of those with more aptitude and ability! If whites cannot compete in proportion to blacks on the playing field of some sports, I guess that’s just too bad. Yet, when some blacks cannot seem to compete on the playing field of intellectual capacity, objective standards are waived for the sake of “fairness”, and often at the detriment of the organization itself. Imagine how many medals the U.S. would lose if it made the Olympic track team proportionate to demographics of the national population. Surely, folks would have an issue with sitting our best on the sidelines all because we wanted to give everyone a shot at making the team. The same applies to every business and agency across America. The most competitive nation, that promotes and retains the best talent, will win the medals. The nation that promotes everyone based on color, despite certain deficiencies, is doomed to regress.
Flag this comment
la
Apr 22, 2009 11:48 PM CST
Poster 10’s hyperbole does no one service here looking for open discussion. Comparing apples of a private organization and oranges of a civil organization is quite obtuse. Civil service tests have been pulled for issues such as this in the past in many cities, this is why the Obama administration sided with the city. It is only discrimination if someone is hired over someone else which is clearly not the case here. No one was promoted. A civil organization has the right to certain remedies they see as exclusionary or unbiased. Case in point, if a worker files a grievance for unfair treatment or practices, a civil organization has the right in many cases to try and correct the wrong. They can do this EVEN if harm was done, nullifying legal action. If they are able to remedy it, there are times when there is no legal redress. In this case, the city believed it wrongly had issued an unfair test. They recalled it and nullified EVERYONE’S score, not just some. There was no wrong here in this sense if the test is proven to be biased.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.