Yodabunny wrote:
I read about this earlier. Cheers to the judge.
You take a test, pass the test, then they scrap the test so they can promote people that weren't capable of passing said test, instead of you?
I'm sorry, if you can't pass the test you don't qualify for the job, it's that simple. If it turns out it's a bunch of white middle class men that end up passing too freakin bad, study more. If someone is more qualified than you they should get the promotion.
Yep. That's what the Supreme Court said. Sotomayor got it wrong, but she's no more racist than anyone else. To be fair to her and the other 2 judges on the panel, it really was a close case.
The Supreme Court decision comes down to an evaluation of just how fragile the city's position was if it should promote based on the test and find itself sued by minorities claiming disparate-impact discrimination (prohibited by Title VII).
The district court and 2nd Circuit panel basically said there was no right answer because the city was potentially violating the law whichever way it went.
The Supreme Court decided the decision to throw out the test results was the wrong decision because there was not a "strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability" if it promoted based on the test. This "strong basis" test has not been applied to Title VII cases before. The Supreme Court imported it from prior Equal Protection cases.
In other words, "fear of litigation" is not enough. Justification for throwing out the test required a "strong basis in evidence to believe it be subject to liability" (in other words ... lose the litigation it fears).
The dissenting opinion concluded that the city had sufficient concern, and in good faith, that it might be in violation of Title VII if it promoted based on the tests.
What's more interesting for Court watchers is the alignment of the justices. You can tell from who provided various concurring and dissenting opinions ...
Predictably, Justice Kennedy was the compromise position or "swing vote." Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito signed concurrences which came down more strongly in favor of the white and hispanic petitioners. Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer dissented. The holding really is a compromise that was acceptable to Kennedy where the stronger positions on either side were not.
Quote:
that the City lacked a strong basis in evidence to believe it would face disparate-impact liability if it certified the examination results. In other words, there is no evidence — let alone the required strong basis in evidence — that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. 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. The City’s discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim.
Here's the actual Scotus opinion.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf
Edited, Jun 30th 2009 11:13am by Ahkuraj