New Haven Firefighters Case in the News
The New Haven firefighters case has been firing up the presses in the past couple of weeks. See previous blog coverage here.
Various news sites and blogs have covered the topic since the Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments in Ricci v. DeStefano this month. Over a dozen white firefighters and one Hispanic filed suit against the city claiming racial discrimination. The Supreme Court will decide whether a government employer may throw out test results if too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another race qualify for promotions.
Javier Lavagnino at FindLaw’s Law & Daily Life blog notes that the New Haven Fire Department hasn’t promoted an employee in four years because too few minorities have scored high enough to receive promotions. The fire department finds it logical to deny career advancement to qualified employees based on the color of their skin, while at the same time denying the race factor.
Lavagnino lays out the main issues in the controversy, including the concept of “reverse” discrimination, which is a misnomer.
Ricci v. DeStefano definitely is a case to watch. The law is clear. According to the U.S. code (emphasis added)
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a respondent, in connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The law is explicit, but government entities contiue to break it. Why? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits preferential treatment based on race, but government entities continue to do so. Why? Perhaps the more appropriate question is why these entities get away with breaking it. Based on federal law, the nine justices on the court have no choice but to rule in favor of the plaintiffs in Ricci v. DeStefano. Unfortunatley, there are no guarantees.
Also see coverage at:
