Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Discriminating against the white firefighters based on a potential lawsuit from the minority firefighters is not following the law. That is what they did - they scrapped the results - after the fact - when it was found that not enough minorities passed the test.
Please, post a link so we don't have to believe your warped interpretation of what the law says.
Yes, it was a "potential" lawsuit that they wanted to avoid. A "potential" lawsuit they would have probably lost. The city chose to promote no one rather than promote someone and be sued. Ginsberg's dissent seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation of the case. The majority opinion is making a huge assumption in this case, that the white firefighters who sued had the right to expect to be promoted. The city's decision not to promote anyone maintained a status quo where no one lost anything, though no one gained anything, either. The white firefighters sued for a potential promotion. If you can minimize the meaning of potential in terms of the risk New Haven faced, then the meaning of potential in terms of the gains the white firefighters sued for can be minimized as well.
The bolded part is the problem. The lower court ruling was following the law, that extraordinarily unbalanced test results is indicative of an unbalanced test and the results should be thrown out and a new test be given.
I disagree. Just because the tests showed an unbalanced result with "races" passing doesn't mean that the test itself is biased against races.
It's a hilarious concept to me to even consider that tests such as these are "racist".
In any case, passing people who did not pass the test simply because of their race is wrong, and racist itself.
Please, post a link so we don't have to believe your warped interpretation of what the law says.
Sorry, but I'm not accepting the responsibility of educating you. It's not possible anyway - you refuse to be educated.
The law is easily researched by anyone who wants to be informed.
Quote:
As far as I can tell, Sotomayor and her colleagues on the Court of Appeals were following precedence in their decision. Today, the Supreme Court changed the precedent and the interpretation of federal employment law. (source)
Anyone who uses this decision to bash Sotomayor is a hack who will reject reality in order to bash her, and by extension, Obama. That's your MO, and a cite to a law that you could look up - if you were interested in being correct - won't change that.
Today could be a very uncomfortable day for Sotomayor as the SCOTUS is set to hand down its ruling on the New Haven firefirghter reverse discrimination case - Ricci v. DeStefano. In all probability she will be overturned, as she should be.
Firefighters Case Looms Large for Sotomayor -- Politics Daily (http://tinyurl.com/nu3wzc - broken link)
free at last, free at last, thank god almighty we are free at last
The bolded part is the problem. The lower court ruling was following the law, that extraordinarily unbalanced test results is indicative of an unbalanced test and the results should be thrown out and a new test be given.
The Majority was flat out dead wrong on this one. But it seems the Republicans are only up in arms about "activist judges" when the rulings don't suit your agenda. It's despicable.
I read title VII a few minutes ago. As the quote above states, if the test is related to job capability then title VII doesn't necessarily apply. It gets sort of tangled. The basic idea seems to be that disparate impact is OK if the test is a good indication of job capability. Disparate impact itself isn't sole grounds for throwing the scores out.
Business necessity If the plaintiff establishes disparate impact, the employer must prove that the challenged practice is "job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i).
I disagree. Just because the tests showed an unbalanced result with "races" passing doesn't mean that the test itself is biased against races.
It's a hilarious concept to me to even consider that tests such as these are "racist".
In any case, passing people who did not pass the test simply because of their race is wrong, and racist itself.
The employment tests that employers used to administer to employees have all but disappeared. Because employers were successfully sued for testing the skills of employees before actually hiring them. Such skills tests have been replaced by degree and certification requirements, because the tests were ruled to be racist. Given that precedent, New Haven's caution when presented with the racial disparity on these tests was not unreasonable.
The employment tests that employers used to administer to employees have all but disappeared. Because employers were successfully sued for testing the skills of employees before actually hiring them. Such skills tests have been replaced by degree and certification requirements, because the tests were ruled to be racist. Given that precedent, New Haven's caution when presented with the racial disparity on these tests was not unreasonable.
But it is unreasonable to force this kind of thing in the name of "racial disparity" in my opinion.
Their actions weren't unreasonable, no. I can understand them wanting to avoid a lawsuit.
However, I do disagree with promoting people to maintain a status quo.
Yes, it was a "potential" lawsuit that they wanted to avoid. A "potential" lawsuit they would have probably lost. The city chose to promote no one rather than promote someone and be sued. Ginsberg's dissent seems to me to be the most reasonable interpretation of the case. The majority opinion is making a huge assumption in this case, that the white firefighters who sued had the right to expect to be promoted. The city's decision not to promote anyone maintained a status quo where no one lost anything, though no one gained anything, either. The white firefighters sued for a potential promotion. If you can minimize the meaning of potential in terms of the risk New Haven faced, then the meaning of potential in terms of the gains the white firefighters sued for can be minimized as well.
I take it you also did not read the case.
The city did all this AFTER the fact. There is no "assumption" in this case, the white firefighters expected and were due to be promoted after the test results said they should be.
You have this totally a**backwards - the city scrapped the results, thereby cheating the white firefighters out of their promotions - ONLY because of the potential lawsuit from the minority firefighters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
