Supreme Court takes up city firefighters’ case

It is ok… They were just White…

What this case is actually about is whether New Haven is allowed to try to comply with the law (Title VII). That law prohibits using tests that have a disparate impact on ANY race (blacks, whites, whoever), unless the test has a "business necessity" and is "job related." In other words, to put it in layman's terms, if the test is going to shut out or seriously impact one racial group or another, it had better be a good test that actually predicts who is going to be a good firefighter.

Lots of tests employers use don't meet that threshold: they don't predict performance. When you've got a test like that, and the results are racially skewed in a massive way (against any race), then you probably are vulnerable to a disparate impact lawsuit by that group, especially if we're taking about a field like police or firefighting where all the communities in the city want some of their people to get hired. Here, the city decided to throw out its test results and start over. That was the right decision _IF_ the city in fact couldn't justify using the test as having any business necessity / being job related.

If the Supreme Court overturns the Second Circuit and rules for the firefighters, the result will be a massive mess and and unbelievable flood of litigation, as any employer trying to comply with Title VII gets slapped with this kind of reverse-discrimination lawsuit by whites -- or by whatever racial group scores highly on any test that the employer doesn't use or throws out or whatever.

Hopefully the YDN will manage to do some more nuanced reporting on this story when the Court actually hears the case and the result comes down.

I think 'tucker' is confused. "reverse discrimination" doesn't mean discrimination against whites. It means calling anti-discrimination efforts, like affirmative action, "discrimination."

Let me spell it out for you. Say a liberal arts college gets a lot of female applicants, but wants about equal numbers of men and women. They'll practice some affirmative action benefiting men, as most liberal arts colleges now do. If women sued about that, or complained about that, or whatever, they would be making a "reverse discrimination" claim.

The firefighter's lawsuit here is "reverse" discrimination not because they're white, but because they're claiming that the city's anti-discrimination efforts (throwing out a test that turned out to have a discriminatory disparate impact) are discriminating against them.

If "One of 20" is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, I obviously sympathize with your frustration that you worked hard on a test that you say was "fair, valid and provided the 'best' candidates for the job," but then the city decided not to use it b/c they didn't want to promote an all-white group of Lieutenants, and/or thought they would be hit by a lawsuit if they did. It doesn't look like the Civil Service Board agreed with you about how "fair" and "valid" and capable of finding the "best" firefighters the test was -- or at the very least, the Board must have concluded that there was a "less discriminatory alternative" that was valid, since they declined to certify the test results. But I have no inside knowledge here. Maybe the Board was wrong and you are right.

I certainly understand that you want to win your case. It must be very frustrating to have the test thrown out by the Civil Service Board AFTER you took it.

But looking at the bigger picture, the problem with what will happen around the country if the Supreme Court overturns the lower courts and rules for the plaintiffs, is that in the future, cities really will be "damned if they do, damned if they don't." If they use a test and end up with an all-white class, they'll get slapped with a lawsuit by the people who got excluded. If they decide NOT to use the test, they'll get slapped with a lawsuit like yours. What is the City supposed to do? You can't just say, "just pick a test and don't worry about whether it has a 'disparate impact' on one group or another." That's clearly illegal. This is going to be a minefield of lawsuits stretching endlessly into the future if you win.

One thing that's not reported here that I'd be curious about is what actually happened in the aftermath of this lawsuit. Did the City end up using a different test instead for promotions? Are the positions still vacant today? Did there turn out to be a "less discriminatory alternative" test that was valid?

"reverse discrimination":

thank you for explaining the case. it was too complicated for me.

I'm well aware of what "reverse discrimination" is used to describe, and my argument stands. It is a loaded term. The firefighters are bringing a "discrimination" case against the department.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but usually the U.S. Solicitor General (and by proxy the White House) pick a side when it comes to Supreme Court cases challenging federal law. So what will Obama do? Try to uphold the racial preference machinery which he himself said he benefited from, and alienate plenty of whites who voted for him? Or recommend striking it down, and alienate the tremendous number of blacks who voted for him?

Either way, the firefighers will win 5-4, and you can kiss the gravy train goodbye.

Change is coming indeed.

I love, Loved, LOVED this!

[Title VII] prohibits using tests that have a disparate impact on ANY [group]"

Yeah, you know, such racialist groups as the literate, the numerate, the studious, the conscientious, the high-scoring, and the like.

Given that--obviously--one CAN create a test that has "disparate impact" on SOME groups, I eagerly await (and have been for years) the test that actively skew AGAINST the majority oppressor class. Let me know when you have one, so I can, uh, STUDY for it!

I love the idea of being "more equal." What does that even mean? I am more neither-better-nor-worse-than-anyone-else than you!