Educate the LayPeople

[DiamondDave]

Actually results do make a test illegal. This is because there is a presumption that blacks aren't systematically more stupid/less qualified than whites. Do you have some issue with this presumption?

the make up of the test may make it illegal, the results can't.

The results can be enough to prove that the make up was illegal.

No

You are flat out wrong on that assumption

As stated... if the makeup of the test were inherently skewed so that whatever race would be given an unfair advantage, then it would be illegal.. the results themselves, even if 0 blacks or 0 whites, or 0 Asians passed it, do not make the test illegal

 

[Tech_Esq]

the make up of the test may make it illegal, the results can't.

The results can be enough to prove that the make up was illegal.

No

You are flat out wrong on that assumption

As stated... if the makeup of the test were inherently skewed so that whatever race would be given an unfair advantage, then it would be illegal.. the results themselves, even if 0 blacks or 0 whites, or 0 Asians passed it, do not make the test illegal

Nik is engaged in a cute little game of hide the ball.

See if this helps:

Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class.

EEO: Disparate Impact

 

[Vel]

If you read this link you might have a clue.

Supreme Court Hears Firefighter Promotion Case : NPR

On the one hand you seem to be against forcing employers to hire certain groups yet here you are seemingly wanting to force the employer's hand.

okay, I'm reading and it says




After five days of hearings, the board decided the exam was flawed.



that's what I'm trying to find out.. How was the exam flawed???

Keep reading. You'll figure it out.

Well maybe YOU should enlighten the rest of us, because I don't see the inherent flaw in the test either. It states that there were 60 multiple choice
written questions as well as an oral exam. Do you really think that minorities are so incapable of understanding the written word that they should have to be tested using table models? Oh come on. That's insane. I happen to have a much higher opinion of minorities than that.

 

[Tech_Esq]

okay, I'm reading and it says




After five days of hearings, the board decided the exam was flawed.



that's what I'm trying to find out.. How was the exam flawed???

Keep reading. You'll figure it out.

Well maybe YOU should enlighten the rest of us, because I don't see the inherent flaw in the test either. It states that there were 60 multiple choice
written questions as well as an oral exam. Do you really think that minorities are so incapable of understanding the written word that they should have to be tested using table models? Oh come on. That's insane. I happen to have a much higher opinion of minorities than that.

See if this helps:

Prima facie case The plaintiff must prove, generally through statistical comparisons, that the challenged practice or selection device has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group. See 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). The defendant can criticize the statistical analysis or offer different statistics.

 

[WillowTree]

Keep reading. You'll figure it out.

other than the part that blacks aren't good at taking tests! what else???

fixed it for you

makes you the biggest dishonest fuck on the board

 

[Vel]

Keep reading. You'll figure it out.

Well maybe YOU should enlighten the rest of us, because I don't see the inherent flaw in the test either. It states that there were 60 multiple choice
written questions as well as an oral exam. Do you really think that minorities are so incapable of understanding the written word that they should have to be tested using table models? Oh come on. That's insane. I happen to have a much higher opinion of minorities than that.

See if this helps:

Prima facie case The plaintiff must prove, generally through statistical comparisons, that the challenged practice or selection device has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group. See 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). The defendant can criticize the statistical analysis or offer different statistics.

Tech.. I do understand the premise of the statute. What I find flawed is the assumption that if minorities don't pass the test, then the test itself must be flawed. Who is to say that the minorities didn't choose to not prepare for the test, knowing that their failure would result in an easier exam? While I doubt that to be the case, it's just as likely as the fact that minorities that live and are educated in the same society as white people are all somehow suddenly unable to comprehend the written word and must have "table models" in order to show their knowledge.

 

[Nik]

The results can be enough to prove that the make up was illegal.

No

You are flat out wrong on that assumption

As stated... if the makeup of the test were inherently skewed so that whatever race would be given an unfair advantage, then it would be illegal.. the results themselves, even if 0 blacks or 0 whites, or 0 Asians passed it, do not make the test illegal

Nik is engaged in a cute little game of hide the ball.

See if this helps:

Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class.

EEO: Disparate Impact

Stating what the law is, is me hiding the ball?

Err, alright then.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So basically, you can prove Prima Facie (on its face) adverse or disparate impact, by showing that:

1) a protected group under Title VII

2) Has an adverse outcome

3) as shown by statistical analysis (usually).

The defense is (once a prima facie case has been made):

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).

Basically, the test that was given is closely tied to the job. (i.e. The job requires you to sort blue cards in one pile and green cards in another. The test requires you to be able to differentiate between blue and green. This would statistically have a disparate impact on white males. (They have a greater incidence of color blindness), but since it is closely related to the job, no disparate impact.)

However:

Alternative practice with lesser impact Even if the employer proves business necessity, the plaintiff may still prevail by showing that the employer has refused to adopt an alternative employment practice which would satisfy the employer's legitimate interests without having a disparate impact on a protected class. 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii).

In the example above, the employer could have put a "G" or "B" on the cards to allow the person to work regardless of being color blind.

Please don't skewer me if the example isn't too strong I just came up with it off the top... It is only meant as an illustration.

 

[WillowTree]

Well maybe YOU should enlighten the rest of us, because I don't see the inherent flaw in the test either. It states that there were 60 multiple choice
written questions as well as an oral exam. Do you really think that minorities are so incapable of understanding the written word that they should have to be tested using table models? Oh come on. That's insane. I happen to have a much higher opinion of minorities than that.

See if this helps:

Prima facie case The plaintiff must prove, generally through statistical comparisons, that the challenged practice or selection device has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group. See 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). The defendant can criticize the statistical analysis or offer different statistics.

Tech.. I do understand the premise of the statute. What I find flawed is the assumption that if minorities don't pass the test, then the test itself must be flawed. Who is to say that the minorities didn't choose to not prepare for the test, knowing that their failure would result in an easier exam? While I doubt that to be the case, it's just as likely as the fact that minorities that live and are educated in the same society as white people are all somehow suddenly unable to comprehend the written word and must have "table models" in order to show their knowledge.

except not all minorities failed, an hispanic finished in the top fifteen.. so I'm still wondering which questions were unfair to black people specifically!

 

[Tech_Esq]

No

You are flat out wrong on that assumption

As stated... if the makeup of the test were inherently skewed so that whatever race would be given an unfair advantage, then it would be illegal.. the results themselves, even if 0 blacks or 0 whites, or 0 Asians passed it, do not make the test illegal

Nik is engaged in a cute little game of hide the ball.

See if this helps:

Even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, Title VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class.

EEO: Disparate Impact

Stating what the law is, is me hiding the ball?

Err, alright then.

You just got out of law school butt head, you know damned good and well what "hiding the ball" is and just how your profs did it to you.

Spare me the feigned innocence.

 

[Fraulein Hilda]

Give us an example of a "justified" adverse impact on members of a protected class.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Well maybe YOU should enlighten the rest of us, because I don't see the inherent flaw in the test either. It states that there were 60 multiple choice
written questions as well as an oral exam. Do you really think that minorities are so incapable of understanding the written word that they should have to be tested using table models? Oh come on. That's insane. I happen to have a much higher opinion of minorities than that.

See if this helps:

Prima facie case The plaintiff must prove, generally through statistical comparisons, that the challenged practice or selection device has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group. See 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). The defendant can criticize the statistical analysis or offer different statistics.

Tech.. I do understand the premise of the statute. What I find flawed is the assumption that if minorities don't pass the test, then the test itself must be flawed. Who is to say that the minorities didn't choose to not prepare for the test, knowing that their failure would result in an easier exam? While I doubt that to be the case, it's just as likely as the fact that minorities that live and are educated in the same society as white people are all somehow suddenly unable to comprehend the written word and must have "table models" in order to show their knowledge.

Welcome to Title VII law.

What can I tell you?

Defenders would say that if a test operates to disadvantage a protected class, then the burden must be on you to show how the test MUST be the deciding factor and why a statistically racially neutral standard can't be used in its place.

In the instant case, it wasn't that no minorities passed, it was that no blacks placed in the top 7 slots for captain and whatever for LT. But, statistically, roughly half of the whites passed, a third of the blacks and a fifth of the hispanics.

Therefore, you have a disparate impact. This impact was made worse by the New Haven rule stating that the top scorers are placed first. Since the whites had the highest scores the results were further skewed in their favor and the impact was made worse.

Maybe Nik can do a better job of defending that side of the argument.

 

[Nik]

Nik is engaged in a cute little game of hide the ball.

See if this helps:


EEO: Disparate Impact

Stating what the law is, is me hiding the ball?

Err, alright then.

You just got out of law school butt head, you know damned good and well what "hiding the ball" is and just how your profs did it to you.

Spare me the feigned innocence.

Oy. You make way too many assumptions. I'm fully aware of what the term means, I just wasn't doing it.

 

[Nik]

Well maybe YOU should enlighten the rest of us, because I don't see the inherent flaw in the test either. It states that there were 60 multiple choice
written questions as well as an oral exam. Do you really think that minorities are so incapable of understanding the written word that they should have to be tested using table models? Oh come on. That's insane. I happen to have a much higher opinion of minorities than that.

See if this helps:

Prima facie case The plaintiff must prove, generally through statistical comparisons, that the challenged practice or selection device has a substantial adverse impact on a protected group. See 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). The defendant can criticize the statistical analysis or offer different statistics.

Tech.. I do understand the premise of the statute. What I find flawed is the assumption that if minorities don't pass the test, then the test itself must be flawed. Who is to say that the minorities didn't choose to not prepare for the test, knowing that their failure would result in an easier exam? While I doubt that to be the case, it's just as likely as the fact that minorities that live and are educated in the same society as white people are all somehow suddenly unable to comprehend the written word and must have "table models" in order to show their knowledge.

How exactly did the minorities know that their failure would result in an easier exam? (Which in fact they couldn't "know" since it didn't happen).

The claim isn't that "minorities can't comprehend the written word". Its that the written word can be interpreted differently by people of different races. Hence when there are black and white multiple choice answers, those who have systematic interpretations closer to the makers of the test, have an advantage.

And just because we are all educated in the same society, we have similar educations? Thats an odd viewpoint to have.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Stating what the law is, is me hiding the ball?

Err, alright then.

You just got out of law school butt head, you know damned good and well what "hiding the ball" is and just how your profs did it to you.

Spare me the feigned innocence.

Oy. You make way too many assumptions. I'm fully aware of what the term means, I just wasn't doing it.

You could have explained how having a statistically provable disparate impact on a protected class was a prima facie violation of Title VII, but you didn't. Therefore, you hid the ball.

Oy, yourself.

 

[Nik]

You just got out of law school butt head, you know damned good and well what "hiding the ball" is and just how your profs did it to you.

Spare me the feigned innocence.

Oy. You make way too many assumptions. I'm fully aware of what the term means, I just wasn't doing it.

You could have explained how having a statistically provable disparate impact on a protected class was a prima facie violation of Title VII, but you didn't. Therefore, you hid the ball.

Oy, yourself.

Thats not hiding the ball. Hiding the ball would be steering someone towards a different answer or having them tease the answer out. Providing them an answer without bothering to fully explain that they don't know what the fuck they are talking about is me not feeling the need to fully educate everyone I come into contact with.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Oy. You make way too many assumptions. I'm fully aware of what the term means, I just wasn't doing it.

You could have explained how having a statistically provable disparate impact on a protected class was a prima facie violation of Title VII, but you didn't. Therefore, you hid the ball.

Oy, yourself.

Thats not hiding the ball. Hiding the ball would be steering someone towards a different answer or having them tease the answer out. Providing them an answer without bothering to fully explain that they don't know what the fuck they are talking about is me not feeling the need to fully educate everyone I come into contact with.

I would say you were precisely engaged in just that. If you didn't want to educate anyone, why would you post on a thread specifically for lay-people to get educated? That's not teasing? Maybe it's just taunting.

 

[Ravi]

Here's another good article on it, with perhaps an explanation that Willow can understand.

That raised the question of whether a fill-in-the-bubble exam was really the best way to evaluate whether someone was suited to a leadership position in the fire department. In fact, the company that made the test admitted that some of the items were "irrelevant" in New Haven. One question, for example, asked the test-takers whether fire equipment should be parked "uptown, downtown or underground when arriving at a fire." The question was based on information relevant to New York City firefighters, and was on the exam even though the city of New Haven has no "uptown" or "downtown."

The fact that whites were disproportionately represented among the top scorers on the test is not surprising. Whites and some Asian American groups, on average, score higher than African Americans, Latinos and other Asian American groups on fill-in-the-bubble tests. Researchers have offered a host of reasons to explain racial gaps in test scores, including disparities in financial, educational and cultural resources, as well as psychological phenomena.

But New Haven did not scrap its promotion list simply because whites had higher scores on the test than minorities. The city understood that Title VII does not automatically prohibit employers from using tests on which whites do better than minorities. In fact, the law acknowledges that tests are useful for evaluating and comparing job applicants. But, under Title VII, it would be illegal for a city to promote firefighters based largely on a test that is not a good measure of a junior firefighter's worthiness to be promoted.

New Haven's attorney correctly interpreted Title VII to mean that the city's firefighter test should measure "who is going to be a good supervisor ultimately, not who is going to be a good test-taker." In other cases, judges have concluded, based on expert testimony, that written, multiple-choice tests for firefighter promotion like the one in this case contain the "fatal flaw" of failing to test for "supervisory ability." The company that made the New Haven Fire Department exam acknowledges that its test does not include any questions that measure a test-taker's ability to supervise or lead other firefighters in the line of duty.

Ricci vs. DeStefano: A test on race - Los Angeles Times

I think a fair review of this SCOTUS nominee should not disqualify her for her ruling on this case. Of course, we are talking about Republicans here.

 

[Nik]

You could have explained how having a statistically provable disparate impact on a protected class was a prima facie violation of Title VII, but you didn't. Therefore, you hid the ball.

Oy, yourself.

Thats not hiding the ball. Hiding the ball would be steering someone towards a different answer or having them tease the answer out. Providing them an answer without bothering to fully explain that they don't know what the fuck they are talking about is me not feeling the need to fully educate everyone I come into contact with.

I would say you were precisely engaged in just that. If you didn't want to educate anyone, why would you post on a thread specifically for lay-people to get educated? That's not teasing? Maybe it's just taunting.

Of course you would. In a thread where conservatives are arguing with liberals and you happen to know the liberals are right, you can't just come out and say that. You have to attack the liberals while doing so. "Well, you are right...but right in the wrong way, so shame on you!"

And the title of the thread was obviously facetious.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Give us an example of a "justified" adverse impact on members of a protected class.

Part of a job is picking up a 50 lbs. box and moving it from one place to another. Part of the job qualification process involves picking up a 50 lbs. weight and moving it the same distance as is required on the job.

If, during this process, it is found that statistically fewer hispanics are able to do this task resulting in more whites being hired than hispanics, then that would prove a disparate impact.

However, because the test is closely related to the job, the employer can successfully defend the test and the result.

The plaintiff would have the opportunity to demonstrate how the employer could chose a different test that would serve the legitimate interest of the employer but not result in the adverse impact on hispanics.