Justice for New Haven Firefighters

Skull Pilot

Diamond Member
Nov 17, 2007
45,446
6,163
1,830
Court Rules for White Firefighters - WSJ.com

:clap2::clap2::clap2:
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

In another case, the Supreme Court is intervening in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.

The court agreed Monday to take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other's permission.

Adding to the case's interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Ms. Sotomayor in a similar case. If confirmed, Ms. Sotomayor would sit on the court that hears the case next term.

The U.S. is among more than 80 countries that follow the treaty.

PS sorry I didn't catch the typo in the title. the edit function won't let me fix it.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I highly doubt this is over. And DavidS, you obviously have no idea what the case was about.
 
So basically the court ruled that the city doesn't have to follow the law as written.

Strange ruling, imo.
 
(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
 
Sotomayor majority over-ruling slips even further. How can this racist be allowed on the Supreme Court?


Court Rules for White Firefighters - WSJ.com

:clap2::clap2::clap2:
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

In another case, the Supreme Court is intervening in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.

The court agreed Monday to take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other's permission.

Adding to the case's interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Ms. Sotomayor in a similar case. If confirmed, Ms. Sotomayor would sit on the court that hears the case next term.

The U.S. is among more than 80 countries that follow the treaty.

PS sorry I didn't catch the typo in the title. the edit function won't let me fix it.
 
Last edited:
Sotomayor majority over-ruling slips even further. Can how can this racist be allowed on the Supreme Court?


Court Rules for White Firefighters - WSJ.com

:clap2::clap2::clap2:
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

In another case, the Supreme Court is intervening in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.

The court agreed Monday to take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other's permission.

Adding to the case's interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Ms. Sotomayor in a similar case. If confirmed, Ms. Sotomayor would sit on the court that hears the case next term.

The U.S. is among more than 80 countries that follow the treaty.

PS sorry I didn't catch the typo in the title. the edit function won't let me fix it.

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.
 
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

In the high-profile, controversial case, white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it.

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued the city of New Haven.

"The city's action in discarding the tests violated (federal law)," the Supreme Court majority wrote Monday, adding that the city's "race-based rejection of the test results" could not be justified.

The city argued its action was prompted by concern that disgruntled African American firefighters would sue. But that reasoning didn't hold sway with the court's majority.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city's reliance of race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," the court ruled.

Twenty firefighters — 19 white and one Hispanic — who were denied promotions in New Haven, Conn., claimed city officials discriminated against them because they were more concerned about potential complaints of Civil Rights Act violations than their performance on advancement exams.

The white firefighters argued discrimination is discrimination no matter what color it takes, and therefore, the city did violate the Civil Rights Act in not promoting the white and one Hispanic firefighters.

Sotomayor was one of three appeals court judges who earlier ruled that New Haven officials acted properly.

The reversal could be used as ammunition by some senators who don't want to see Sotomayor confirmed.


Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Case - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

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?
 
Affirmative Action (in my opinion) goes against the equal protection and privilege and immunities clause. However, I know why affirmative action was enacted and I 100% agree that, at the time, it was necessary.

I do NOT agree with you. In fact I strongly disagree with you, that there can be discrimination in the work place (whether it be hiring or firing!). In fact those comments you spewed are utterly ignorant and arrogant. As a fellow Jew I am embarrassed by it! As a Jew I am shocked you could take such a stance! Anti-semitism is ever prevalent! You don't think it can't be turned to where rednecks, White religious bigots, far lefist who call themselves "anti-zionist, Blacks, Latinos, Arabs or just good old fashion Jew-haters turn and say "oh I will never high a Jew under any circumstances," do you? It can I am so glad the the 14th amendment has the P & I and Equal Protection clauses to prevent this! Not hiring someone because of race, religion, color, nation origin, familial status, age, sex or sexual orientation is just as bad as firing them for it!


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.
 
Sotomayor majority over-ruling slips even further. Can how can this racist be allowed on the Supreme Court?


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.

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.

As if I give a flying fuck about the Repudlicans.

If latinos don't like the fact that a truly just decision was made, fuck them.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: del
Sotomayor majority over-ruling slips even further. Can how can this racist be allowed on the Supreme Court?
:cuckoo: I suppose four of those on SCOTUS are racists.

Nope just liberals morons!

A ruling like this is why I love Thomas! The man puts his race and everything to side and rules on what is in the constitution! He is a true patriot. He learned from the teaching of Martin Luther King, "Will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character!"

I guess Thomas learned, but Sotomayor didn't! :(
 
Last edited:
Sotomayor majority over-ruling slips even further. Can how can this racist be allowed on the Supreme Court?

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.

As if I give a flying fuck about the Repudlicans.

If latinos don't like the fact that a truly just decision was made, fuck them.

Umm, you should prolly. And feel free to discount them the fastest growing demographic in the US :lol:
 
Sotomayor majority over-ruling slips even further. Can how can this racist be allowed on the Supreme Court?
:cuckoo: I suppose four of those on SCOTUS are racists.

Nope just leftist morons!

A ruling like this is why I love Thomas! The man puts his race and everything to side and rules on what is in the constitution! He is a true patriot. He learned from the teaching of Martin Luther King, "Will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character!"

I guess Thomas learned, but Sotomayor didn't! :(

You are an idiot. Thomas is a complete and utter moron. If you think Thomas follows the Constitution, you need to read his decisions more. The Constituion doesn't say Congress can infer a suspension of habeus.

As for your comment before about Sotomayers opinions being over-ruled, thats essentially a lie. Her rulings have been over-ruled LESS than the average.
 
Sotomayor majority over-ruling slips even further. Can how can this racist be allowed on the Supreme Court?


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.

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.

Bingo! Why do you think Obama picked her? He, or more like Axelrod, is a crafty politician! He realizes that he could pick a controversial Latino to the bench, who would side with the liberals (his position), then have the right (specifically House and Senate members) come out and speak the true, that she is a racist (not the kind in the mold of the KKK, but the kind in which she uses her power and allows it to influence her decisions).

Obama is eyeing 2010. He sees a supermajority in the house, senate and state governorships within his sites! How does he get there: (1) Turns the economy around and pulls even people on the right to D (Hey if the economy turns by Dec, I will probably go D in 2010) or (2) Get more Latinos on board (Using Sotomayor is a good pawn!)
 
Sotomayor majority over-ruling slips even further. Can how can this racist be allowed on the Supreme Court?

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.

Bingo! Why do you think Obama picked her? He, or more like Axelrod, is a crafty politician! He realizes that he could pick a controversial Latino to the bench, who would side with the liberals (his position), then have the right (specifically House and Senate members) come out and speak the true, that she is a racist (not the kind in the mold of the KKK, but the kind in which she uses her power and allows it to influence her decisions).

Nice speculation there.


Obama is eyeing 2010. He sees a supermajority in the house, senate and state governorships within his sites! How does he get there: (1) Turns the economy around and pulls even people on the right to D (Hey if the economy turns by Dec, I will probably go D in 2010) or (2) Get more Latinos on board (Using Sotomayor is a good pawn!)

I doubt you will ever go Democratic. You are far too unhinged by that.
 
I highly doubt this is over. And DavidS, you obviously have no idea what the case was about.

do you think they'll appeal it to the ghost of learned hand?
:eusa_whistle:

No. But its entirely possible for the black firefighters now to sue.

"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."

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

good luck to them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top