Ricci Decision: 5-4 Ruling In Favor Of Firefighters (FULL DECISION TEXT)

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.

Read the full decision here.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[TodPedro]

12:58 PM on 07/27/2009

[ModernTimes1]

01:17 PM on 07/02/2009

Supreme Court ruling:
"All the evidence demonstrates that the city rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white...Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision-making is prohibited," Justice Kennedy.
BRAVO.

[texaslib82]

11:28 AM on 07/02/2009

Let's take the example of spelling bees...which has a huge cash reward and scholarships associated with it... that TEST has been dominated by Asian Americans for years now....WHY? NOT because they brown, black or white because they STUDIED.....STUDIED....

get over it ppl...

[ModernTimes1]

01:09 PM on 07/02/2009

From this point on all spelling bees must include words in E.bonics to make it mo' fair.
If you're able to spell 'ubiquitous,' why not wasssup or shizzle.

[FGDinVA]

02:39 PM on 07/02/2009

I think we can see how your cloth is cut now.

[slb83]

10:16 AM on 07/03/2009

Most of those spelling bee kids aren't from the average public school in America. Moreover, spelling bees require hundreds of thousands of dollars in resources, unless the child gets sponsored by someone. It takes just as much MONEY.....MONEY....MONEY. Have you won a spelling bee lately?

[ModernTimes1]

02:52 PM on 07/01/2009

YES to principles of meritocracy. NO to sacrifice of merit on the altar of political expediency.
Thank you Supreme Court.

[slb83]

03:01 PM on 07/01/2009

The next time you fill out a job application that asks you for personal references, make sure you leave it blank, because it violates your beliefs in meritocracy and see if you get hired.

[TheKurgan9]

03:04 PM on 07/01/2009

So now if a white man uses references this will be unfair to blacks? Man you are losing it.

[ModernTimes1]

03:20 PM on 07/01/2009

Slb83. I know you're trying hard to make sense. And I applaud you for it. But try thinking issues more thoroughly before attempting refutation.

[FGDinVA]

04:36 PM on 07/01/2009

Isn't it the crux of the decision that New Haven had insufficient grounds to withhold certifying the test? If there had been proof that the test was somehow biased, the decision may well have gone the other way.

[slb83]

02:48 AM on 07/02/2009

Yeah, that's the new legal standard that they set after pretty much scrapping the old one. The old disparate impacts standards suggests the following: " EEOC's Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Criteria, which finds an adverse impact if members of a protected class are selected at a rates less than four fifths (80 percent) of that of another group. For example, if 50 percent of white applicants receive a passing score on a test, but only 30 percent of African-Americans pass, the relevant ratio would be 30/50, or 60 percent, which would violate the 80 percent rule. "

After New Haven reviewed the test results, it clearly satisfied that requirement, along with the other three relevant requirements, which was reason for them to scrap it legally based on the results. If they didn't scrap it, it probably would hqf3 gone the other way. Then again, when politics of merit comes into play, the City could have stood their ground, fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, and still won given the Supreme Courts recent history of ruling on prior cases related to discrimination in pay.

[slb83]

02:49 AM on 07/02/2009

They could have gone further and done away with disparate impacts all together, however they may have watered it down enough to the point that would make it difficult for WILLING employers to control for bias in hiring. Whether legitimate or not, they'll end up facing white male backlash at any attempt. It's going to end up creating more problems because it goes against the Supreme Court's Michigan ruling that diversity is a compelling state interest. That makes it ok, just as long as it doesn't negatively impact the majority group to pursue it without use of quotas, which were deemed illegal in the Bakke case of 78.

[slb83]

02:39 PM on 07/01/2009

In response to TheKurgan9 et al.

I am going back on my previous suggested solution in terms of doing away with the test for all, and starting over. Given that there are tensions associated with decision of the City of New Haven concerning the tests, I am willing to admit that a more suitable, all though not equitable, solution would be to certify the tests and then reexamine the tests for build in bias in the short term. In my opinion, tests like these for specific jobs should consist of questions that are more experiential and contextual rather than more componential, as people who are posses more componential characteristics are usually more able to perform well on standardized test, but it does not mean that they are any more or less insightful and knowledgeable about the world around them then those who poses more experiential and contextual cognitive abilities. Also, I really think the City of New Haven, if they have not done so already, closely monitor the employment practices of the fire department in terms of hiring and promotions. You can only understand what's going on if you really KNOW what's going on.

[slb83]

02:40 PM on 07/01/2009

Moreover, this case clearly has generated a lot of racial tension at this establishment. The fact that the black firefighters are not as integrated into the main union is troublesome to say the least. There needs to be some racial reconciliation and solidarity training initiated by the fire department on its own or imposed by the city, all employees can discuss their racial grievances in a safe place similar to what we are doing on this post, without fear of organizational reprisal. It really is problematic when you have the complexities of racism separating a group of individuals, who are supposed to have a brotherhood/sisterhood type bond that would allow them to perform their duties more harmoniously so that they can effectively benefit the diverse community in which they serve. This is absolutely all that I have to say on this matter. I do believe that it is time for that national discussion on race. Peace everyone!

[ModernTimes1]

02:49 PM on 07/01/2009

One cannot suddenly change criteria for promotion based on race and expect ready
reconciliation. And it is no good mucking up the waters with baseless allegations and deflection of the thoughtless and racist actions of New haven politicians.

[ModernTimes1]

02:50 PM on 07/01/2009

We can have all the discussions you want...after the New Haven firemen are appointed to positions unfairly and illegally denied to them.

[slb83]

02:56 PM on 07/01/2009

Yeah, probably not going to happen at this point. Once you get to the Supreme Court, the statute of limitations for enforcing such a thing is nonexistent. Moreover, it is so rude to start discussion with everyone on equal footing, with a condition. You already agitated people.

[slb83]

01:45 PM on 07/01/2009

This same standard is always applied to cases involving minority plaintiffs, and in most cases, do not result in a win for the plaintiff since the burden of proof is far less for organizations to prove that they did not discriminate based on based on their minority status, The supreme court used legal precedent in the Ledbetter equal pay case even her case constituted a disparate impact, which suggested that her complaint was bared due to procedural time constraints, which was also a 5-4 ruling. However the political establishment, which is more open to handling gender discrimination issues, decided to use this as a campaign tool to garner public support, which resulted in the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act. So ultimately, if popular political culture accepts it, the Supreme Court can be undermined. However, In the case involving white men, Supreme Court's majority decided to ignore legal precedent, and created another legal standard when it came to the interests of the white male firefighters regardless of the lack luster evidence of disparate impact in terms of the EFFECTS on the white males. I bet there will be no public campaign to sign an act based on this, because democrats, republicans, White, Black, Hispanic/Latino, still do not have a firm grasp on the complexities of racism in this country! And if people think that this case is a "strong" case for bias against Whites, then this is just insane and no wonder we aren't making any meaningful progress.

[ModernTimes1]

02:21 PM on 07/01/2009

Except in this suit a clear of blatant racism was involved. And has been redressed.

Racism is wrong directed at ANY race. Obviously you disagree.

[slb83]

02:50 PM on 07/01/2009

No it wasn't. Legal standards were severely relaxed in this case involving white males relative to other similar cases involving women and other minority complainants like Ledbetter and others. You clearly are not comprehending the distinction and are blinded by your fundamental assumptions about the case. I do agree with you, however it is unfair when legal standards are being relaxed for white men, who didn't even have to prove blatant/intentional discrimination, opinions would agree that there was no intentional discrimination in this case. It was a question about disparate impact, and the concurring justices used the emotional costs as reason for disparate impact against the white males, when there life chances at getting a promotion were either expanded or limited, just like everyone else who took the test. They scraped prevailing legal standards and created a new one, and now those on the conservative front cannot argue that "liberal" judges do not go by the law!

[slb83]

01:45 PM on 07/01/2009

Let's be clear, companies know that they can't discriminate blatantly because it's illegal. There are subtle ways that these things happen. Those subtle ways are in many cases seemingly fair. Audit studies examining race in hiring and housing discrimination, have consistently shown that blacks and other minorities are discriminated against at higher rates. In terms of job application, folks with seemingly Black, Latino, or Arabic sounding names receive less call backs then folks with seemingly white, European or Western sounding names, regardless of the applicant's actual racial designation. These things cannot be used in court in a law suit against a particular establishment, because research ethics standards prevent researchers from disclosing that information in research publications. Civil rights laws can rarely apply to such informal discriminatory practices. Disparate impacts WAS designed to address seemingly fair formal practices with results that disproportionately impacted protected classes. Disparate impacts definition is located here: http://www.hr-guide.com/data/G702.htm. This legal standard was used in all of the lower court decisions regarding this case.

[ModernTimes1]

02:19 PM on 07/01/2009

Supreme Court said otherwise.

[ModernTimes1]

12:53 PM on 07/01/2009

Good job Supreme Court for standing up for people who were discriminated against on the basis of their race.

[Ben017]

01:52 AM on 07/01/2009

From Kos:

"I agree with Ginsburg's logic. No one is entitled to a promotion. All firefighers were treated the same because none were promoted. Where's the discrimination?"

That is indeed an accurate summary of Ginsburg's position, which is precisely why it's ludicrous. Suppose a private company promised -- in writing -- to promote someone to Public Relations Director based upon a written exam, and then after the test was done, it turns out a black guy had the highest score. Then the company bigwigs said "well... we really don't want a black guy as our public face... so we're going to rescind our agreement and invalidate the test." The company in question freely admits that, if the guy had been white, he would have gotten the PR position. Do you really think this wouldn't be a Title VII violation? Would "hey, we were so opposed to having a black guy in the position, that we decided not to promote anyone" been "non-discriminatory" under Ginsburg's tortured logic as well?

OF COURSE the city's actions were in clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ginsburg's dissent borders on racist garbage. I read it twice and was disgusted both times. Shorter Ginsburg: "Screw Title VII. Firefighting has a history of racial discrimination against blacks, so now it's the white guy's turn to suffer." It is a spectacularly offensive opinion that left me sick to my stomach.

[dennisrs]

09:23 AM on 07/01/2009

Ben017 like your post 01:52am

[FGDinVA]

09:40 AM on 07/01/2009

'Shorter Ginsburg: "Screw Title VII. Firefighting has a history of racial discrimination against blacks, so now it's the white guy's turn to suffer." It is a spectacularly offensive opinion that left me sick to my stomach.'

Considering how you interpreted her decision, I doubt there is much point in debating with you on this point. But that's not stopping me.

A history of racial discrimination via testing is sufficient grounds for *suspecting* that it could be possibly happening in such a case as this. She made no mention of the action by New Haven as being justified by previous occurrances of discrimination.

[Ben017]

10:54 PM on 06/30/2009

Note also that Chinese migrants outperform whites on average. Does this make testing discriminatory?

[Ben017]

10:52 PM on 06/30/2009

These results are consistent with standardised test results going back over 80 years. For example, New Haven’s own Yale Law School makes intensive use of the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). It has a black-white gap comparable to the New Haven firefighter’s tests: the median black law school hopeful would score at only the 12th percentile among whites.

Why do people expect that groups separated breeding in different environments over a period of 50,000 years would be identical?

[slb83]

11:30 PM on 06/30/2009

Those standardized test results that go back 80 years ago are a reflection of the realities that existed on the ground for whites and blacks. Meaning, that whites, particularly upper class whites to be specific in historical terms, had better educational opportunities than black do to discrimination and so-called separate but equal Jim Crow laws. Despite the advances made after Brown, students that are graduates of predominantly black and latino serving schools are still underfunded, coupled with the realities of poverty and the crime that correlates with high poverty. Moreover, those tests go back to the Eugenics Movement, which was in high swing approx eighty years ago, with the unique purpose of excluding certain populations (blacks, many cases poor whites, women, and some European Immigrant groups) from gaining opportunities that would enable them to achieve positions of social, political, and economic power. This has nothing to do with people being separated and breeding in different environments. This is an inherently racist Eugenics argument, moreover these arguments still rear their ugly heads in terms of the arguments that claim biology or environmental adaptation influences cognitive ability. I never thought I'd see this argument, but then again, surprise surprise.

[slb83]

11:38 PM on 06/30/2009

Since then, America has developed an obsession for standardized testing, which studies have shown to be more of an indicator of a person's household family income rather than the ability to perform well at the college/ post graduate level.

[slb83]

11:39 PM on 06/30/2009

HEY MODERATOR. WHERE IS THE REST OF MY RESPONSE TO BEN017?

[TheKurgan9]

12:01 AM on 07/01/2009

Standardized tests such as the GMAT, LSAT, GRE, are incredibly simple exams. The GRE for instance contains high school algebra and doesn't come close to Calculus. Anyone can do algebra and it is a very easy math to learn on your own. Seriously 11th grade math.

The verbal section is knowing how to read, reading comprehension and having memorized tons of vocabulary words. So instead of watching TV at night for several months, you memorize vocabulary. It isn't difficult, all it takes is dedication.

[k1dork]

06:45 PM on 06/30/2009

I guess as a black man, I have an inherent inability to pass tests that are 60% written, that test my test-taking and memorization skills.

I didn't know that I was so disadvantaged, but I learn something new every day. Funny, huh? Even with my supposedly inherent learning disabilities, I learn something new every day.

[slb83]

06:52 PM on 06/30/2009

No one stated that anyone had an inherent inability on here. You did. Test outcomes do not mean inherent ability or inability. Our experiences influence are abilities to perform jobs. Promotional tests are supposed to measure that. Why would you need to study for knowledge gained through work experience. However you do need to study hard questions that are not related to the job. And if you didn't have access to those study materials as others, then guess what, you are at a disadvantage. And that has nothing to do with some inherent inability. So I don't know what your argument came from.

[k1dork]

07:15 PM on 06/30/2009

So the tests were discriminatory against inexperienced firemen, not minorities? Is that what you're saying?

Also, if that's the case : SO WHAT? I don't think inexperienced firemen should be promoted either.

I can see how the lack of study materials would be problematic, but that doesn't mean the study materials were unavailable for racial reasons.

[dennisrs]

08:44 PM on 06/30/2009

It just like "you people" run faster, jump higher and have higher endurance. "Your people" don't read as well as white folks nor do you comprehend as well either. Forget the math! How insulting these Libs can be as they go around Labeling people here and there.
Just stupid. IMHO

[slb83]

10:21 PM on 06/30/2009

I would bet the average black old man who didn't have the experiences and the opportunities that I had, would still have a better understanding about how society works for those who hold political power and social capital then YOU given his experiences in America! And in most cases, even ME!

[coalbanks]

06:43 PM on 06/30/2009

Of course we discriminate! How else do we make descisions? Discrimination is simply the means/rationale by which we arrive at a descision. That is not the problem. Bigotry is the problem. The problem arises in the reasons for the discrimination: race, colour, creed, nationality, gender? Or aptitude, proven ability to do the job, training, experience, character? Discriminate in favour of the competant candidate. Discriminate against the less competant & the outright incompetant. Please excuse my spelling errors. You wouldn't discriminate against me as a teacher for that would you/ You would? I may have to sue you for "DESCRIMINATION"! After all I'm an "X" & everyone knows we can't be expected to spell as well as non-X-ers. So hire me or else!

[TheKurgan9]

05:23 PM on 06/30/2009

slb83

you claim that math skills are irrelevant. Absolutely not true. Buildings are made of materials and different materials ignite differently and there are chemistry based reasons for that. So a Captain needs to know chemistry. How a building may fall or hold up to a fire has to do with its design - that is engineering and that is math and physics. My Dad had to know all about that - different gases ignite due to different temperatures, conditions, flash points. You think firefighting is merely about pointing a water hose at a fire?

Math and Science education is very important for officers - it is not irrelevant and it saves lives. Just to have a surface understanding of some of these scientific principles can be very tough. The Captain and Chief...and believe it or not, all firemen should know.

[slb83]

06:27 PM on 06/30/2009

So is it your assumption that the Blacks didn't know those questions? Wouldn't you get exposed to those training materials well before becoming a captain? Do only captains know about that? Because if so, any fire dept would have a problem. Moreover, those questions allegedly had more to do with intellect beyond what was required for the job (inclusive of basic knowledge about structure and basic chemistry). Many sociologists are not statisticians, but they know how to use basic statistical methods (through various programs) to analyze social phenomena. You don't have to be a Mathematician to be a sociologists as you don't have to be an engineer or a chemist to be a firefighter. I'm sure if the blacks didn't know basic chemistry or engineering, the fire department would have blown up years. Don't try and make this like they need some specialized knowledge other than knowledge gained from years of experience working the job. This tests clearly overrides seniority and experience.

[slb83]

06:36 PM on 06/30/2009

Moreover, you don't need to know about the chemical reactions and how to balance an equation representing that. All you need to know, is not to put water on a grease fire, or don't mix these two chemicals. If you have a test where you are asking potential promotion candidates to balance an equation, even if it is referencing some sort of chemical reaction related to fires, it's irrelevant. The type of intelligence required to balance an equation is not the same as the kind of intelligence required to properly put out a grease fire or properly examining building structures that may impede a rescue mission. Those are two types of cognitive processes in action. And you have to have a test that measures the right one.

[TheKurgan9]

11:05 AM on 07/01/2009

No my assumption is that the Blacks didn't study hard enough to get the sufficient score to warrant a promotion for themselves.

Wait a minute, you just said you don't have to be a mathematician to be a sociologist. Yet you spout the legitimacy of sociology through statistics - which is math.

I was a Psychobiology major and I had to take 3 classes in stats. Stats is not just about mean, median, and mode. It can be very involving. So I am assuming that the "Branch" of sociology that you are pursuing is lacking in the mathematics. You are starting to disappoint me.

[k1dork]

03:36 PM on 06/30/2009

Does anyone know if fire departments in predominantly black cities give written exams for firemen looking to advance to leadership positions?

If so, are those tests "flawed and discriminatory" as well?

[slb83]

03:45 PM on 06/30/2009

All written examinations aren't designed the same. You have to be more specific.

[k1dork]

03:55 PM on 06/30/2009

I think we ALL know that predominantly black cities give written exams as well. I think you're assuming that the New Haven tests were flawed and discriminatory with no real basis to make such assertions.

The New Haven tests were designed to exclude backs, huh? How so?

[TheKurgan9]

03:52 PM on 06/30/2009

Yes - New York City does - the largest and the best fire department in the country.