« U.S. Troop Withdrawl From Iraqi Cities | Main | 'Kenyan Birth Certificate' Remains eBay Mystery »
June 29, 2009
Supreme Court Reverses Sotomayor Decision About White Firefighters
Supreme Court Reverses Sotomayor Decision Sides With White Firefighters Who Say They Were Discriminated Against
WASHINGTON
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.
The white firefighters argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it. Sonia Sotomayor, who has been nominated to take Souter's seat, was one of three appeals court judges who ruled that New Haven officials acted properly.
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 controversy started when New Haven voided its entire 2003 promotional exam after the results made 18 whites - but no blacks - eligible to become officers. When the city decided to promote no one, the white firefighters called that invalid under the Constitution.
The city said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a "disparate impact" on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and sought to avoid lawsuit from minorities who were turned down following the test.
When the case reached the appeals court Judge (now Supreme Court nominee) Sonia Sotomayor was on the three-judge panel that rejected the reverse discrimination complaint.
"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim." Justices Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Title VII prohibits both intentional acts of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion sex and national origin (or disparate treatment), and policies or practices that intentional or not have a disproportionately adverse discriminatory effect on minorities (or disparate impact).
Under Title VII, an employer can engage in an act of intentional discrimination for the purposes of avoiding or remedying a disparate impact only if there is evidence that the employer would be subject to disparate-impact liability. The Justices did not feel New Haven's action rose to that level.
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.
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."
Ginsburg said that "it is indeed regrettable that the City's noncertification decision would have required all candidates to go through another selection process. But it would have been more regrettable to rely on flawed exams to shut out candidates who may well have the command presence and other qualities needed to excel as fire officers. Yet that is the choice the Court makes today. It is a choice that breaks the promise of Griggs that groups long denied equal opportunity would not be held back by tests 'fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.'"
She was joined in dissent by Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.
It's Justice David Souter's last day on the Supreme Court. Souter said he'd retire when the court rises for the summer recess. He was named to the court in 1990.
Court Opinion is here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf
Wild Thing's comment......
Anyone else notice how there are waaaaaaaaaaay too many 5-4 decisions. Is our Constitution hanging on by a thread?
One of our nephews is a firefighter in New York, and the stories he tells about things that have happend at their Station because of giving in to the affirmative action horrible. ONe big thing that went on a few years ago was lockers being broken into and things stolen. Personal items just poof taken at whim and no respect for the other firefighters.
Then there is also the danger involved in allowing people, heck anyone, through when they have NOT passed the tests given. It is similar to the military in that there is training and everyone has got to know how to do things the right way or lives can be put in danger.
So I am extremely pleased about this decision of the Court and I just wish more of the Judges wanted to respect our Constiution and our firefighters as well.
Obama at first said he was looking for someone with lots of "empathy" for the "hopes and struggles" of losers, but with Sonia Sotomayor it looks like he decided to zero in on *stupid* instead. In Sotomayor, Obama had found someone in the likeness of Obama and even looks a lot like Manuel Noriega.
Among Sotomayor's much-heralded "disadvantages" is apparently the lack of any brains.
Obama Defends Sotomayo
White House defends Sotomayor after ruling reversed
H/T Gateway Pundit
The White House came to the defense of President Obama's pick to be the newest Supreme Court justice after Judge Sonia Sotomayor's ruling in a racially charged case was reversed by the Supreme Court.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs all but accused the current court of "judicial activism," a buzz term used by conservatives in recent years, in overturning what the White House saw as Sotomayor's upholding of precedent.
The highest court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. were discriminated against after the city threw out a promotion test after one Hispanic and no African-Americans passed. Sotomayor ruled in favor of the city as an appeals court judge.
Republicans on Monday sought to use the case to question Sotomayor's qualifications and buy more time before her confirmation hearings are set to begin on July 13.
But Gibbs said that the case "denotes that [Sotomayor] is a follower of precedent," and the arguments over judicial activism "seem to be at the very least upside-down in this case."
Gibbs said the case proves "she doesn't legislate from the bench."
"I think it is an interesting new interpretation of a law that has been reviewed by many judges in many courts, judges appointed by Democrats and Republicans."
Posted by Wild Thing at June 29, 2009 02:27 PM
Comments
Bitch slapped!!!
Posted by: Jack at June 29, 2009 04:43 PM
This proves the left is more concerned about 'the' agenda than Justice and the Constitution just gets in their way. This runs parallel with how obama thinks about the Constitution and his choices for the court reflect this thinking.
As long as he is prez. there is a definite threat to the Constitution.
Posted by: Mark at June 29, 2009 07:04 PM
Just had another thought...it happens.
Anyway, Does anyone remember Carmen Basilio Boxer, 50's and 60's middleweight, always a contender. SotoMayo's face looks just like Basilio's after 10 rounds with Sugar Ray Robinson, the real Sugar Ray. Maybe its a gene thing I don't know but her demeaner, walk she reminds me of an old char woman. Not someone suited for the Highest Court in the land.
Posted by: Mark at June 29, 2009 09:21 PM
Jack she sure was. haha Yipeee
Posted by: Wild Thing at June 29, 2009 11:58 PM
Mark, I agree so much.
"As long as he is prez. there is a definite threat to the Constitution"
Mark I love boxing and yes I remember Carmen Basilio. He was also a Marine.I agree what
you said about Sotomayor.
Posted by: Wild Thing at June 30, 2009 12:06 AM
A good deal for those White firefighters. What bother me is another 5-4 SCOTUS decision. Four mebers are always going to vote extreme liberal no matter the moral orconstitutionality of the other side. And sometimes Kennedy joins them. Thin glass we are walking on.
Posted by: TomR at June 30, 2009 12:18 AM
