Supreme Court backs New Haven Firefighters
 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/...ion/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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 backed firefighters in a reverse discirmination case Monday.

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 where an African-American occupies the White House.

"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," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority.
Don't Miss

The case has received added attention because Sotomayor was on the appellate court that dismissed the appeal of one Latino and 19 white firefighters.

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 Sotomayor about her role in that case as well as her comments about ethnicity and the bench.

I can see both sides of the issue. I think the court did what makes sense and sets a good precedent given the context.

The test wasn't deemed discriminatory by intent. It was exclusionary by outcome.

The fire department probably should have kept the test results and studied them by race in order to impliment changes for the future. Throwing the test results out wasn't a good idea.

I haven't read the opinion, but this was kind of an expected ruling. Very much like Washington v. Davis in the facts and outcome.

I agree.

What do you mean by this? I don't understand. :confused: I mean, I can see where the test was not meant to be discriminatory, but how was the outcome exclusionary, based on race, I presume?

no black firefighters and only one latino fire fighters got promoted.

NO. No one got promoted because no black firefighters and only one latino fire fighter scored well enough to be promoted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...in;contentBody

One of the things that's interesting to me about this is that at one point someone tried to review the test to see what was biased about the questions asked. I'm trying to find a link to the results.

I can't find the article I remember reading but this discusses some of the issues:http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news...e=1&cat=&more=

well, yea. ok, the reason i stated was the reason the test got thrown out initially.

No it wasn't, because like UGAalum94 says, no one got promoted.

The test results were thrown out because (again, as UGAalum94 says) no black firefighters and only one latino fire fighters scored well enough to be promoted to begin with, leading the city to believe that if it certified and relied on the test results, the city would be open to a lawsuit claiming that the test was unfair to non-whites. So instead, they got a lawsuit from the employees who would have been promoted had the test results been certified.

I was waiting for someone to post about this.

Like DrPhil, I can see both sides of the issue; it goes to the context in which the test is administered as well as to the test itself. Also, listening to NPR today, they said that the scores were canceled primarily to preempt a lawsuit from the black and latino firefighters. That is a piece of the story that I had not heard before and doesn't seem to be sound justification for the action. Of course, there must have been merit to the case on the other side; otherwise, the white firefighters would not have had to go through such an extensive appeals process.

I am wondering what this means for Sotomayer's confirmation.

good grief. talk about majoring in minors. that was the geist of my post.

I'm confused as to how this made it all the way to the Supreme Court. It seems pretty cut and dried to me in that the test results should not have been thrown out. Am I missing something? :confused: I am definitely not a Sotomayor fan, but I don't think that has colored my viewpoint on this.

Was the content like the professional exams, where they're based on things you were taught in school and learned on the job? Or are they more like the HS standardized exams? I know there's an alleged class/race bias on those tests, but I know that there aren't any in the other professional exams.

I couldn't find this in any article, but was the content determined to be biased against the minority candidates? Was the testing information widely available for review and practice?

I mean, I have exams I have to take and pass in order to become registered. If I fail one, just because I'm black doesn't mean that they should throw out the test results for everyone.

Sue me -- I'm a lawyer and I pick the nits like crazy when it comes to court opinions. :D

And here, it is a distinction with a legal difference -- or at least a difference that matters in understanding the opinion -- I think.

The sequence of how it went down is what actually matters in the case, I think.

The actual suit resolved today depends entirely on the promotions being canceled.

The city claims that the reason they canceled the results was that they expected Black and Hispanic firefighters to sue if they went through with the promotion. Today, the Supreme Court said that being afraid you'd get sued alone wasn't a good enough reason to discriminate against a different racial group.

It's hard not to feel bad for the dyslexic guy who said he studied for like 10 hours a day and scored well enough for a promotion and then didn't get one based on the performance of other racial/ethnic subgroups on the test, over which, of course, he had absolutely no control.

Thank you!

The fact that this made it to the Supreme Court amazes me.

Whether the test was analyzed for racial biases or not, how can a FIREFIGHTING TEST be geared toward whites? It makes me extremely mad to think that New Haven might have thought, "Well, only white people passed. That's not fair. And we don't want to get sued." I'm sorry, but if any of the people who didn't pass the test had sued, that case probably never would have seen the inside of a courtroom. At least it shouldn't have, because there would have been absolutely no justification for it.

I don't know about anyone here, but when people show up to my house to rescue me from a possible fiery death, I want people who know what they're doing. I don't care if they're white, black, blue, green or purple. If you're educated and trained enough to save my life, then come get me. But if you can't pass the firefighting test, go study more.

New Haven actually decided that promotions, that were apparently necessary in the FIRE DEPARTMENT, could be put on hold because only whites passed. That's sad.

where'd you read this at? just want to know the source.

that's a very poor reason to throw out results.

Thank you for mentioning this. This guy probably studied and worked ten times as hard as everyone else, and he was still turned down because he was white.

I was getting ready to say you all are typing in circles over semantics. I knew what you meant.

I found this on MSN:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31609275...s-white_house/

At the end of the article, the author points out that the test results were thrown out to avoid a lawsuit.

It looks like they avoided one lawsuit but walked right into another. Awesome.

"The 19 white and one Hispanic firefighter who sued the city in Ricci v. DeStefano argued that their civil rights were violated under Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. They say that the Civil Service Board failed to certify the exams in a 2-2 vote on the recommendation of then-City Attorney Thomas Ude because no blacks or Hispanics scored high enough to be promoted.

Ude had warned that if the tests were approved, the city could be sued by minority firefighters under the same Title 7, since the scores resulted in a "disparate impact" against non-white firefighters."

These two paragraphs are from the http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news...e=1&cat=&more= article I added to a post above.

Welp, poor dyslexic guy. Life's a party.

And there goes the semantics of reverse discrimination. They weren't turned down because they were white. Organizations, in general, haven't gotten to the point where they discriminate against whites in the manner that nonwhites have been discriminated against for generations. The test results were thrown out because of the poor performance of the nonwhites, which they feared would lead to a questioning of the test and perhaps of organizational practices.

Personally, when the firefighters come to put out a fire at my house, I don't think that a standardized written test or an oral exam or interviews will have measured the skill set I'm going to want them to have.

However, when it comes to promotion to leadership roles and training of other firefighters, I think the tests probably have some merit.

The article I linked above goes over the tests and other tests that can be used.

The white firefighters in the suit claim that every question on the test came from the readily available study guide. If that's true, it's hard to figure out, why the test would be particularly racially or ethnically biased, except as the results shook out, which is the heart of a disparate impact claim.

It is better to be sued by a group of angry whites than to be considered as having practices that discriminate against any kind of minority groups.

I'm sorry if that's how my statement came across, but that's not precisely what I meant (although I could see how you'd take it that way). I know they weren't discriminated against because they were white, but essentially because non of them were minorities.

Hence, the test is not necessarily deemed discriminatory by intent. It isn't like the SAT where people say the items are geared toward a particularly social class and so forth.

The issue becomes what is it about the preparation for the test, recruiting (?) of firefighters who will take the test, etc. that may result in racial disparities in test results. They could always conclude that the Black and Hispanic test takers were just ill prepared for the test or sucky test takers. That's a weighty assumption and claim.

See, and here I disagree with you. They were turned down simply because, although they met the standard laid out for promotion, they failed to be of the racial groups the city was particularly interested in making sure got promoted.

Their race was the main factor in the city's failure to promoted them. It's hard to see it otherwise.

It may not have taken the form of a "no whites need to apply" sign, but it worked out the same for them.

I imagine that most municipalities and public institutions feel that way. But, wouldn't they expect the rejected whites to file a lawsuit? I mean, we're in the post-Hopwood world here. Reverse discrimination lawsuits don't seem to be as popular as they used to be 5-15 years ago, but they still happen.

There are a ton of questions I have about this whole to-do, but it's a moot point at this juncture.

Yet I do.

I think so. Discrimination claims are relatively rare, but interestingly enough, reverse discrimination claims (not lawsuits but claims) may be more common than minority group claims of discrimination. In the literature, one of the explanations for this is white privilege whereas minority groups are more accustomed to not being hired and promoted.

I think the pool of test takers was self-selected. I've never seen an interview with the non-white applicants who took the test addressing what caused them to fair poorly.

I agree with the Supreme Court Decision. I am also surprised it had to get this far! One would think that lower level judges would be able to figure this one out! I think it shows a clear example that reverse discrimination is real and need to also be prevented.

not necessarily. their group wasn't turned down because they're white. they were turned down because there weren't more or any blacks or latinos. those 20 fire fighters would have been promoted had there been a some black or latino fire fighters. which doesn't hinge upon their whiteness.

But it does. Because the whiteness of the successful test takers is what prevented them from being black or Hispanic. [ETA: it's true that had others been among them, the issue wouldn't have shaken out like it did, but the fact that they didn't get promoted because they were white and not some other race remains.]

I'm not saying that the intent of the city was racial discrimination, but the effect of the decision had a disparate impact on whites.

I don't know that I go around fretting about reverse discrimination a lot, but most programs that involved the advancement of one group will frequently involved at least active disinterest in the success of other groups. It's hard to do this in a way that doesn't have an effect on one group or another.

There could also be the fact that rejected whites may have the means and wherewithal to hire an attorney or find a private attorney willing to represent them pro bono, where a rejected minority may not be able to find the same and may rely on non-profits, which is just another version of white privilege.

On the other hand, I think a lower percentage of highly qualified minorities, especially those of an affluent background, are rejected from certain things. It's said that affirmative action benefits well-to-do minorities most of all; this clearly doesn't stand in the firefighter case, but it's an interesting angle.

Is the glass half empty or half full? Ohhhhh...the conundrums of life.

White people and especially white males need not fret about reverse discrimination. For every organization that gives a damn about equal opportunity based on race and gender, there are 10 that don't. Long live the status quo. Pip pip hooray!

lets say 25 people pass. 20 are white. 5 are nonwhite.

lets say 20 people pass. 20 are white. 0 are nonwhite.

tests are kept for the 1st case. tests are thrown out for the second. the tests are thrown out not because of the first number, but because of the second number. if the tests were thrown out because of they were white, both cases would result in the same outcome.

IMO.

These are all good points you're making.

It's difficult to know what stands in the firefighter case. I don't think we know very much about it. Much of what I'm typing has to do with the history of discrimination in this country and only a shmidget of what I know about the case. UGA said the firefighters were self-selecting. That makes sense, but I wonder if it's that straight forward. Hiring and promotions usually aren't because people often get a *nudge* from those who want them in those positions.

Thanks everyone for the explanation! :)

After reading through the article above, I am left wondering how much time / effort did the Black candidates put in to be successful. The article mentioned that other professions have standardized exams that everyone must pass, so why is this exam / case different?

I've taken one professional exam in my life(http://www.ascp.org/FunctionalNaviga...ification.aspx) and my class at my particular school consited of 8 people: 2 Iranians, 1 Indian (from India), 1 African and 4 Black Americans. 6 of us passed and two didn't. The two who did not pass were Black Americans. So no one can say that the exam was biased based on race.

I knew I had to study, I did and I passed on my first try.

wait, when i say first and second, i mean the # of white firefighters = first number, and # of nonwhite firefighters = second number.

The racialized comparison doesn't work as well when the pool of test takers are all immigrants and/or racial and ethnic minorities.

I think that people need to remember the implications of assuming "oh...the minorities just didn't prepare well enough" whenever there's a disparity in outcome. Probability statistics aside, it is not uncommon for organizations concerned with equal opportunity to look at the distribution of test results.

Well, as far as I understand it, all that the decision did today was say that it wasn't acceptable to, out of fear of a disparate outcome lawsuit, take an action that had a disparate outcome on a different racial group.

It's pretty unique to a goofy set of conditions.

How many employers are going to advance one seemingly racially and ethnically objective system of advancement based on one test and then feel free to throw out the results of that system when it doesn't yield the racial or ethnic results that they were really looking for?

I suspect that the city in the original case would do the whole thing differently today.

I understand the point you're trying to make, I think, but the deal is that promotions were supposed to be based on achieving certain scores, not on the racial composition of the people achieving those scores.

It was after the fact that the city basically said, those of you who passed aren't non-white enough so we're canceling the promotions. It's not a theoretically pool, it was a group of specific people who faced this action because they were almost exclusively white.

In theory, as far as my opinion is concerned, if the city wanted to say we're only promoting based on results that yield at least this percentage of non-white qualifiers, maybe that'd be the way to go, since all applicants would have a vested interest in their own success and the success of whatever racial and ethnic groups the city wanted to advance.