I just watched the testimony of two of the firefighters who were plaintiffs in the Ricci case speak their piece at the Sotomayor hearings. When Sotomayor's appeals court summarily dismissed the case, they acted according to existing law which specified that if a policy was discriminatory in practice then it is illegal. The Supreme Court overturned this law as written. What was striking to me while listening to these firefighters was how their arguments centered over two things:
1) We studied really hard for this test.
2) Our feelings were hurt when our case was dismissed.
Here we have, on one hand, a judge dispassionately applying the law as written, and a group of plaintiffs (who have been given a platform to speak by Republican senators) asking for empathy!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'm missing what you're attempting to say.
ReplyDeleteShould they have given up and bythely accepted what they felt was unfair treatment?
A judge's record is highly relevant given the current discourse. How often that judges opinions are overturned by a higher court speaks to that jurists understanding of the law and legal precedent. Granted this is just one case out of hundreds she has presided over.
What standard are you using to determine that the policy was discriminatory in practice?
Haven't heard mention of the results of statistical post analysis to determine other correlations.
It was discriminatory in practice because only white firefighters did well on the test. Whatever else the test correlated to, you can't use a test that only recommends white people. It's discriminatory on the face of it.
ReplyDeleteAh, but Amy no investigation was made into the WHY of the problem. The knee-jerk reaction is that it was somehow inherently racially biased; but is that actually true?
ReplyDeleteFor a moment, just take the thought experiemnt of:
1)The test was not biased
2)And still no firefighter members of minority groups passed the test.
A second thought experiment:
1)The test is not biased
2)No caucasian firefighters pass the test.
Would either of those tests be discriminatory in practice as well? Or is something else causing the underlying discrepancy?
My previous point is that the only correlative factor people make mention of in this case is the "race-card". What of other factors? Or are we to believe that only race matters? I for one believe the issue is far from so simplistic.
That's not even getting into the difference between correlation and causation.
Yes -- those *are* both examples of an employment practice that is discriminatory in practice. Who thinks which is okay is a different issue from the actual SCOTUS interpreation of Title VII.
ReplyDelete*typo: interpretation.
ReplyDeleteShould the firefighters have given up and accepted what they saw as unfair treatment?
ReplyDeleteThat depends on what you mean. No, they did not have a right to legal remedy based on law as written before the recent SCOTUS ruling. Yes, they did have a right to a second chance after the New Haven fire department retooled the test. They should have prepared to do well on the second round rather than taking this to the courts.