Supreme Court rules for white firefighters in bias case | McClatchy Washington Bureau

×
Sign In
Sign In
    • Customer Service
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Contact Us
    • Newsletters
    • Subscriber Services

    • All White House
    • Russia
    • All Congress
    • Budget
    • All Justice
    • Supreme Court
    • DOJ
    • Criminal Justice
    • All Elections
    • Campaigns
    • Midterms
    • The Influencer Series
    • All Policy
    • National Security
    • Guantanamo
    • Environment
    • Climate
    • Energy
    • Water Rights
    • Guns
    • Poverty
    • Health Care
    • Immigration
    • Trade
    • Civil Rights
    • Agriculture
    • Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • All Nation & World
    • National
    • Regional
    • The East
    • The West
    • The Midwest
    • The South
    • World
    • Diplomacy
    • Latin America
    • Investigations
  • Podcasts
    • All Opinion
    • Political Cartoons

  • Our Newsrooms

You have viewed all your free articles this month

Subscribe

Or subscribe with your Google account and let Google manage your subscription.

Politics & Government

Supreme Court rules for white firefighters in bias case

Michael Doyle - McClatchy Newspapers

June 29, 2009 11:09 AM

WASHINGTON — A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Monday that the city of New Haven, Conn., had discriminated against white firefighters, reversing a key decision by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

The court's much-anticipated 5-4 decision is guaranteed to become prime fodder for Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearings. It also will change how employers handle hiring decisions.

"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 wrote.

Kennedy and the court's four consistent conservatives concluded that New Haven violated Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the city discarded promotion test results on which minorities had scored poorly. City officials claimed that minority applicants otherwise would have sued them.

"The city rejected the test results because too many whites and not enough minorities would be promoted," Kennedy wrote. "Without some other justification, this express, race-based decision-making violates Title VII's command that employers cannot take adverse employment actions because of an individual's race."

The decision puts New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci and his white colleagues back on track for potential promotions they were denied despite high test scores in 2003.

More broadly, the conservative Sacramento, Calif.-based Pacific Legal Foundation predicted that the ruling could shape the Memphis (Tenn.) Police Department, the California Department of Transportation and other agencies that are facing similar legal challenges over race-related hiring decisions.

"It says to employers, if you're concerned about the makeup of your fire lieutenants, or your supervisory ranks, then you need to think about what type of selection process you're going to use at the front end," Stanford University law professor Pam Karlan said.

In the future, the court ruled, employers must have a "strong basis in evidence" that they'll be sued before discarding test results solely on the grounds of race.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read aloud a stinging dissent, criticizing the "strong basis in evidence" standard as "enigmatic" and confusing to employers.

"By order of this court, New Haven . . . must today be served, as it was in the days of undisguised discrimination, by a fire department in which members of racial and ethnic minorities are rarely seen in command positions," Ginsburg wrote.

For Sotomayor, the high court's 34-page majority opinion will be at least a glancing blow. The court rejected the reasoning of Sotomayor and the two other judges on a panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The Supreme Court saw the case for what it is: a 'race-based decision' that violates federal law," declared Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who cast the high court decision as anti-Sotomayor.

Tom Goldstein, a Washington lawyer who practices regularly before the court, contended that the narrowly decided ruling split along the court's traditional ideological lines "doesn't call the confirmation into question," though it might offer Republicans more talking points. Kennedy's majority opinion doesn't directly criticize the 2nd Circuit's reasoning.

The case arose from New Haven's efforts to promote a new batch of officers. Written tests counted for 60 percent of the promotion decision, and an oral exam counted for 40 percent.

The African-American pass rate on the written exam was roughly half that of the white applicants'. The Hispanic pass rate was lower, and none of the top 19 scorers in the competition for captain and lieutenant positions was African-American. Under civil rights law, this is a "disparate impact" that can be considered evidence of discrimination.

New Haven officials had said they feared that the test results exposed them to a "disparate impact" lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The white firefighters stressed their own efforts to pass the test. The 34-year-old Ricci, for instance, took additional measures including converting text to tape to overcome his dyslexia.

"There is no evidence that the tests were flawed," Kennedy wrote.

A trial judge initially rejected the firefighters' claims in a 48-page opinion whose reasoning later was adopted by Sotomayor and the two other appellate judges.

"We're quite disappointed in the decision," said John Payton, the head of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. "It's a step back from the goal of equal employment opportunities."

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY

Follow the latest legal affairs news at McClatchy's Suits & Sentences

Study: Sotomayor doesn't favor discrimination plaintiffs

Failure to promote white firefighters draws Supreme Court scrutiny

Which way will Roberts court go in racial discrimination case?

Follow the latest politics news at McClatchy's Planet Washington

Read Next

Video media Created with Sketch.

Midterms

Democrat calls for 48 witnesses at state board hearing into election fraud in NC

By Brian Murphy and

Carli Brosseau

December 30, 2018 07:09 PM

Democrat Dan McCready’s campaign listed 48 witnesses for the state board of elections to subpoena for a scheduled Jan. 11 hearing into possible election fraud in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District.

KEEP READING

MORE POLITICS & GOVERNMENT

Latest News

Trump administration aims to stop professional baseball deal with Cuba

December 29, 2018 02:46 PM

Congress

’I’m not a softy by any means,’ Clyburn says as he prepares to help lead Democrats

December 28, 2018 09:29 AM

Courts & Crime

Trump will have to nominate 9th Circuit judges all over again in 2019

December 28, 2018 03:00 AM

Investigations

Cell signal puts Cohen outside Prague around time of purported Russian meeting

December 27, 2018 10:36 AM

Congress

Lone senator at the Capitol during shutdown: Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts

December 27, 2018 06:06 PM

Elections

California Republicans fear even bigger trouble ahead for their wounded party

December 27, 2018 09:37 AM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

McClatchy Washington Bureau App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Newsletters
Learn More
  • Customer Service
  • Securely Share News Tips
  • Contact Us
Advertising
  • Advertise With Us
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service