Sotomayer decision reversed

[The Cleric]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8124873.stm

The US Supreme Court has overturned a ruling endorsed by Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee to fill a vacancy on the court.
Ms Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, had ruled that white firefighters in Connecticut had not been unfairly denied promotions.
But the Supreme Court ruled by five votes to four that the firefighters had been unfairly discriminated against.
The ruling could have a significant impact on US employment practices.
'No right'
The firefighters, from New Haven Connecticut, had taken a promotion exam, but city authorities threw out the results after no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters did well enough to win promotion.
New Haven officials feared that if they honoured the results of the test, they could have been sued under racial equality legislation.
But some of the city's white firefighters brought a lawsuit against the authorities to reinstate the results of the exam.
When Ms Sotomayor and her colleagues on the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case, they ruled that the city had acted correctly, but the US Supreme Court has now overturned that decision.
"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," said Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion for the court, backed by four other justices.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion."
Justice David Souter, whom Ms Sotomayor is nominated to replace on the court, agreed with Justice Bader Ginsburg's opinion.
The BBC's Kevin Connolly in Washington says the ruling is an embarrassment for Judge Sotomayor, but her eventual confirmation on Capitol Hill still seems assured by the large Democratic majorities there who support Barack Obama.

[General Havoc]

I disagreed with Sotomayor's ruling on this case, but her ruling was considerably more nuanced than the right wing made it out to be. She did not say that the city had to ensure that minorities were promoted whether or not they deserved it. She said that the City of New Haven had the right to decide to cancel all promotions if they so chose to. I personally think she was incorrect, but I can see her side of the opinion

[The Cleric]

Can you imagine the outrage if the skin color of the participants had been reversed?

[edit] I agree that the firefighters had no RIGHT to promotion. But when they were denied it over the fear of racially motivated litigation, then that IS an issue.

[General Havoc]

Can you imagine the outrage if the skin color of the participants had been reversed?

[edit] I agree that the firefighters had no RIGHT to promotion. But when they were denied it over the fear of racially motivated litigation, then that IS an issue.

It would appear the court agreed.

[Cynical Cat]

Well 5 of the court agreed. 4 didn't and the written decision were nuanced. It's not that big of a deal.

[Derek Thunder]

I got the sense from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that Sotomayor's decision to rule in favor of New Haven was the correct interpretation of the law as written:

Source here.

(k) Burden of proof in disparate impact cases

(1) (A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-

(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity

Consider the word "impact." It would seem that New Haven could have been liable under Title VII because the results were skewed. Thus, the city would have been within its rights to discard the tests, although it probably would have been better for all involved if they'd considered different methods of assessing performance for the purpose of promotions.

[General Havoc]

Except that according to that statute, the practice of selectively throwing out the tests because no minorities qualified also caused a "disparate impact on the basis of race." A case could be perhaps be made that doing so was "consistent with business necessity" (as the city feared a lawsuit if they did not throw out the tests), but it was clearly not "job related for the position in question" as the test had been administered in the first place as a method of selecting valid candidates for promotion.

The way I read this, the city would have been within their rights to do this only if they had specific reason to believe that the testing process or grading thereof (not the results) were racially biased in some way.