Court rules for white firefighters over promotions
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 10:14 AM


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.
"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.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
WASHINGTON (AP) - 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.

__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf ‘86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad

sounds like a common sense ruling....

Since when did that matter?
Empathy baby. Empathy! That's the evolving standard.

Anthony Kennedy plays kingmaker once more.

I think that was a fair ruling.

Perhaps, in general, decisions like that will take into consideration, all parties involved, and not just minority preference for diversity sake.

Back when "whitey" was prevalent in the labor force, I think that minorities were unfairly squeezed out of a lot of opportunities...now that the trend has reversed, so has discrimination in many cases.

Let's keep the playing field level from now on. Reward those with the abilities to do the job.

__________________
2009 ML350 (106K) - Family vehicle
2001 CLK430 Cabriolet (80K) - Wife's car
2005 BMW 645CI (138K) - My daily driver
2016 Mustang (32K) - Daughter's car

As I remember it, the argument was that the retest was justified because the percentage of minority applicants did not achieve parity with the population at large. Hence there was something wrong with the test.

Can you imagine though if you were the test administrator? Either way you get sued. What a job.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

Yes!

I'll be so happy when we no longer feel compelled to quote someone's race in news stories or consider it when it comes to hiring, firing, promoting...

When it comes down to it, we're all human beings.

__________________
-Evan


Benz Fleet:
1968 UNIMOG 404.114
1998 E300
2008 E63


Non-Benz Fleet:
1992 Aerostar
1993 MR2
2000 F250

The trend has reversed? Are you saying that white people are at a disadvantage in our economy? If so, then I have to disagree completely. The Supreme Court's ruling in the New Haven firefighter case seems sensible to me, but that's a far cry from saying that the playing field has tilted in favor of minorities. IMHO.

I cannot applaud this as a 5-4 decision; it clearly should have been 9-0. I think the decision landed on the right side but the 5-4 split is just a right vs left issue. With a different makeup of the Supreme Court this could just as easily have gone the other way and that is scary. As grown ups the judges should be able to put aside their personal prejudices and rule on the law. Not sure that happened here.

Its already happening. At least here in Maryland, if the perp is White, then race is part of the article. If the perp isnon-white, then race is NOT part of the story.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

How do you know?In fact, it sort of seems that you are sure that it didn't happen. Since the Court of Appeals was unanimous the other way, my guess is that the legal issue is closer than you think it is.

You misread my statement, or I should have elaborated.

The labor force in general is become more diverse, meaning more and more Hispanics, Asians, Indians, African-Americans, etc. comprise of a larger percentage of the labor pool than in the past. So in general, adjusting the parameters to balance selections in favor of minorities at this juncture may be considered unfair.

The economics of the income power among the different groups is an entirely different story...

__________________
2009 ML350 (106K) - Family vehicle
2001 CLK430 Cabriolet (80K) - Wife's car
2005 BMW 645CI (138K) - My daily driver
2016 Mustang (32K) - Daughter's car

New Haven is pretty messed up, their government is about as corrupt as can get, only West Haven beats them in corruption.

Not surprising they screwed themselves with something like this, they have a very pro minority, pro illegal government.

It was a fair ruling.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

EXACTLY!

Great sentiment!

__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf ‘86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad

Dkulkin - as I read it a group of people passed a test for promotion. The leadership refused to honor the results of the test because it assumed it would be sued by some who did not do as well on the test. There was no evidence presented that there was a problem with the test.

Clearly if my assumption above is correct, those who passed the test should be promoted. Race should have no place in the decision.

Am I missing something?

Wearing my "let's be fair hat," I would hope the final decison was made for the right reason; however, I cannot be sure that race had absolutely nothing to do with the decision. I hope that we are traveling that way but I do not think we are yet cleansed of all our prejudices.

That all makes perfect sense to me, but I haven't read the opinions issued in connection with the case, so I'm just guessing.

I should also clarify what I said. Just based on the way each particular justice voted, it does appear that the decision was split between left and right. My quibble with your previous comment was that it seemed as if you were saying the the justices picked sides and voted that way. AFAIK, each justice voted the way he or she interpreted the law. If I was putting words in your mouth, I apologize.