Supreme Court rules for white firefighters over promotions
Ruling overturns nominee Sotomayor's appeals court decision
|
Print
E-mail
New Haven firefighters dubbed "the New Haven 20" applaud a supporter (not pictured) who joins them in solidarity outside New Haven Federal Courthouse on Jan. 9 in New Haven, Conn. Judge Sonia Sotomayor last year, along with two other judges, issued an unusually brief decision that went against white firefighters. The Supreme Court ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race Monday, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. Photo: Brad Horrigan/New Haven Register, The Associated Press
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.
"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," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."
Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.
Kennedy's opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.
But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with "indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.
"This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case.
Comments
that should look bad for sotomayor. Good for her and obamanation that the lefties rule the roost. For now...
Do you think it looks worse for her than it did for Alito when the Court reversed five of his decisions? (Planned Parenthood v. Casey; Rompilla v. Horn; Thomas v. Comm'r of Social Security; Coss v. Lackawanna County D.A.; Fiore v. White)
Do you think it looks worse for her than it did for Roberts when the Court reversed him in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld after he had been confirmed as Chief Justice?
I would think it looks worse for Sotomayor and the Democrats when they so eagerly push an official policy of picking the winners by race. How is their position any different from the Ku Klux Klan other than they prefer different races to win? Why does such a flagrantly racist policy have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to be defeated? Why do liberals object to a meritocracy and prefer a racial spoils system?
Steve, no one was picked because of race. Clearly you don't understand the basics of the case. Do a little research. After the test was given, New Haven found it to be racist and no one was promoted. No one had the legal right to be promoted.
Sotomayor joined with the majority to uphold the lower court's ruling. In other words, she followed precedent and saw no judicial error.
Read it here: www.ca2.uscourts.gov/...)
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, engaged in judicial activism.
The law is the law and no judge should rule according to racial preferences. The Supreme Court inferred anti-White discrimination and looked for evidence that the defendants proved they did not break the law. That's judicial activism at its worst.
no. their entire argument was fear of a lawsuit under title 7.
well under connecticut state law they had earned their promotion. to then deny the promotion based on racial preference violated their 14th amendment rights.
The law is the law and no judge should rule according to racial preferences. The Supreme Court inferred anti-White discrimination and looked for evidence that the defendants proved they did not break the law. That's judicial activism at its worst.
certainly your opinion. some questions that new haven never answered: 1. if the test was known to be racist, why give it? 2. if the test had nothing to do with position for which it was given, why use it? 3. new haven never contended that the test was racist, only that the results were not racially neutral.
affirmative action is an antiquated and non-progressive idea and it is the crux of true institutional racism.
transcripts from ricci v destefano available here: ricci
made an error in the quoted section. new to the toys.
Though the behavior of the New Haven Fire Department may have been unjust, and may have violated Connecticut law, it did not violate any legal federal law.
Congress has no granted authority to regulate the hiring standards of local employers. Hiring standards have nothing to do with “commerce...among the several States,” which is why Title VII, the whole issue in this case, should be ruled unconstitutional.
Though Sotomayor used entirely different legal reasoning, the outcome she voted for (letting the local actions stand) is technically correct.
Harry Selby is right to say that the Supreme Court engaged in judicial activism. But it was judicial legislation because the court let the unconstitutional federal law stand and interfered with an issue (hiring standards) that is reserved to the states.
Exactly. They feared that they would be in violation of Title VII (Civil Rights Act of 1964) by being accused of discriminating according to race and/or color.
The promotions weren't denied because of racial preference (at least New Haven didn't deny them promotions because of racial preference, but because they feared that the tests were biased and unlawful).
There is a big difference between intents (New Haven intended to follow the law). The firefighters who passed the test certainly deserved to be promoted . . . but those who failed the test were, most likely, given a biased test (I read the test and I think it is biased, yet I don't believe it has been legally challenged).
New Haven claimed it didn't realize it was racist until the results came in.
I don't know that it had nothing to do with position.
New Haven claimed that they thought the test violated Title VII.
New Haven tried to follow the law. Granted, they should have considered the test more carefully before distributing it or given a new, race-neutral test, to those who failed in order to give then a fair chance. Clearly New Haven screwed up, but there was nothing federally legally binding upon them to promote anyone.
Read the Second Circuit's opinion (it's one paragraph): "We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D.Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected."
Clearly the three judges (Sotomayor, Pooler, and Sack) did nothing but uphold the lower court's ruling and found no basis for a challenge.
Brian, the court should only consider the question(s) before it. I don't believe the constitutionality of Title VII was one of those questions.
how is that possible? the test was sealed by the court.
yes and by following title 7 they violated both conn. state law and the 14th amendment.
by that token there was nothing federally binding to overturn conn. state law and throw out the test. equal protection is applied to every walk of life.
and this is the crux of the case. how could any serious claim of bias be made when a guy with a reading disability placed 6th on the exam? old fashioned liberal thinking. not progressive.
i have no beef with sotomayor. she did her job correctly. it is not the place of the appellate court to make precedent, that role belongs to scotus.
many things should have been done. i felt that ricci had a strong case under ada, however they decided to go class action and file under the 14th amendment. the lawyer for ricci,etal didn't directly challenge the constitutionality of title 7. don't know why.
the court made a narrow ruling that left the door open for a challenge to title 7. i hope that the black firefighters file under title 7 and this thing gets resolved.
There has been no legal ruling as to whether or not the tests violated the law.
The U.S. Supreme Court found that New Haven VIOLATED Title VII.
"Held: The City’s action in discarding the tests violated Title VII."
www.supremecourtus.gov/...
This was, of course, a reversal of the two lower courts who didn't see any evidence of a Title VII violation.
I think you are unclear here. No court overturned CT state law and no court found that New Haven violated CT state law. The lower courts did not see any unequal protection under the law being applied by New Haven. The Supreme Court created special legislative rules as it pertains to this case.
The claim was based on the results and a fear of disparate-impact liability. That's not liberal or conservative, but an attempt to follow the law. There is no evidence that the city of New Haven is run by racists or even reverse racists (the Fire Chief is white, the Mayor is white, the Board of Aldermen is diverse, etc.).
The Court's ruling makes that moot. It decided that there was no strong evidence of a Title VII violation (produced by the city) to support a possible suit on behalf of those who did poorly on the test.