Justice for New Haven Firefighters

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Skull Pilot, Jun 29, 2009.

  1. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,811
    Thanks Received:
    4,499
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,099
    Court Rules for White Firefighters - WSJ.com

    :clap2::clap2::clap2:
    PS sorry I didn't catch the typo in the title. the edit function won't let me fix it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2009
  2. DavidS
    Offline

    DavidS Anti-Tea Party Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,811
    Thanks Received:
    766
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New York, NY
    Ratings:
    +767
    To give minorities special treatment for being minorities is quite disgusting. I have never, EVER agreed with affirmative action. Everyone talks about the starting point for black people being well behind that of white people... well there are pieces of white trash out there with absolutely no potential whatsoever and there are rich black people out there as well. If the black community would stop spending so much time saying "We're black - you have to give us special treatment because we're black" and start saying "We're black, we should be treated equally and we are going to work just as hard as white people and we're going to create our own opportunities just like white people do." They need to stop this whole "entitlement" attitude and start working on themselves and providing for themselves as a community. There's nothing wrong with having cultural pride, but I find the way that many, not all, but many people in the black community walk around and think the world owes them because of how their ancestors were treated is absolute shit.

    If I run a private corporation and it's my business and I only want to hire white Jews, it's my perogative. The government should not tell me who I can and cannot hire. BUT - if I fire someone because of their race... then, well that's a different story.
     
  3. Nik
    Offline

    Nik Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,581
    Thanks Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +85
    I highly doubt this is over. And DavidS, you obviously have no idea what the case was about.
     
  4. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,365
    Thanks Received:
    12,696
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,813
    So basically the court ruled that the city doesn't have to follow the law as written.

    Strange ruling, imo.
     
  5. Nik
    Offline

    Nik Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,581
    Thanks Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +85
    Not really that either....

    You guys should try reading the opinion before commenting on this thread. Or at least parts of it.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf
     
  6. del
    Offline

    del BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    Messages:
    45,052
    Thanks Received:
    9,830
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +9,885
    (ii)
    The City’s assertions that the exams at issue were not job related and consistent with business necessity are blatantly contradicted by the record, which demonstrates the detailed steps taken to develop and administer the tests and the painstaking analyses of the questions asked to assure their relevance to the captain and lieutenant positions. The testimony also shows that complaints that certain examination questions were contradictory or did not specifically ap-ply to firefighting practices in the City were fully addressed, and that the City turned a blind eye to evidence supporting the exams’ valid-ity. Pp. 28–29.

    (iii) Respondents also lack a strong basis in evidence showing an equally valid, less discriminatory testing alternative that the City, by certifying the test results, would necessarily have refused to adopt .Respondents’ three arguments to the contrary all fail. First, respondents refer to testimony that a different composite-score calculation would have allowed the City to consider black candidates for then-open positions, but they have produced no evidence to show that the candidate weighting actually used was indeed arbitrary, or that the different weighting would be an equally valid way to determine whether candidates are qualified for promotions. Second, respondents argue that the City could have adopted a different interpretation of its charter provision limiting promotions to the highest scoringapplicants, and that the interpretation would have produced less dis-criminatory results; but respondents’ approach would have violated Title VII’s prohibition of race-based adjustment of test results,§2000e–2(l). Third, testimony asserting that the use of an assessment center to evaluate candidates’ behavior in typical job tasks would have had less adverse impact than written exams does not aid respondents, as it is contradicted by other statements in the record indicating that the City could not have used assessment centers for the exams at issue. Especially when it is noted that the strong-basis-in-evidence standard applies to this case, respondents cannot create a genuine issue of fact based on a few stray (and contradictory) state-ments in the record. Pp. 29–33.
    (iv) Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. Discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of today’s holding the City can avoid disparate-impact liability based on the strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability. Pp. 33–34.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...df/07-1428.pdf
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. GHook93
    Offline

    GHook93 Aristotle

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    17,921
    Thanks Received:
    3,126
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +4,931
    Sotomayor majority over-ruling slips even further. How can this racist be allowed on the Supreme Court?


     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2009
  8. Ravi
    Offline

    Ravi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2008
    Messages:
    81,365
    Thanks Received:
    12,696
    Trophy Points:
    2,205
    Location:
    Hating Hatters
    Ratings:
    +29,813
    :cuckoo: I suppose four of those on SCOTUS are racists.
     
  9. Nik
    Offline

    Nik Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    3,581
    Thanks Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +85
    Keep saying that. Maybe you can get Latino support for Republicans even lower than it is now. It'll be hard, but you might be able too.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  10. G.G
    Offline

    G.G Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2009
    Messages:
    67
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +18
    I think it was the right decision. They took the test, they passed the test, the city can't ignore it just because some minority might sue them for discrimination.

    Does anyone think this decision will have any impact on Sotomayor being appointed to the Supreme court?
     

Share This Page