the act’s “disparate impact” provision | My Assignment Tutor

Flunking the Test; The Supreme Court shouldhave had more information before deciding thecase of New Haven firefighters.Anonymous . The Washington Post ; Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]30 June 2009: A.12.ProQuest document linkABSTRACTAfter seeing such a lopsided result, the city — as it was obligated to do by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 —reassessed the fairness of the test under the act’s “disparate impact” provision, which prohibits even neutralemployer acts if they have a discriminatory effect minorities that cannot be justified by a legitimate businesspurpose.FULL TEXTTHE SUPREME COURT yesterday preserved — for the moment — an important provision of civil rights law, made itmore difficult for employers to uphold that provision and concocted a standard never before applied in such cases.Most disappointing, the court took all these steps even though it did not have before it a fully developed record ofthe facts.The court split 5 to 4 in Ricci v. DeStefano, a closely watched racial discrimination case that arose in 2003 in NewHaven when no African American firefighters qualified for promotion on the basis of written and oral exams. Afterseeing such a lopsided result, the city — as it was obligated to do by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 —reassessed the fairness of the test under the act’s “disparate impact” provision, which prohibits even neutralemployer acts if they have a discriminatory effect minorities that cannot be justified by a legitimate businesspurpose. The city held public hearings in which it heard from white and minority firefighters, testing experts andcommunity members; a city board ultimately declined to certify the test, in part because of questions aboutwhether it was irrevocably and discriminatorily flawed.White firefighters who would have been promoted sued the city, saying it had engaged in reverse discrimination.They lost in the federal trial court, which concluded that the city properly followed civil rights law. The court,however, ruled at such an early stage in the proceedings that neither side was allowed to gather more evidence tobolster its claims. Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, sat on a three-judgepanel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that affirmed the lower court ruling.We had urged the justices to send the case back to the trial court to determine, once and for all, whether NewHaven was right in concluding the test was discriminatory and unusable. Instead, the conservative majority, led byJustice Anthony M. Kennedy, slapped down New Haven’s actions and created a new legal standard for Title VIIcases that makes it harder for other employers to justify throwing out suspicious test results. The court alsoconcluded that New Haven had not met this tougher standard — even though the standard did not exist at the timethe city was making its determinations. The court declined to allow the city to return to the trial court to seewhether it could justify its actions under the new legal regime. A small consolation: The majority did not invalidateTitle VII’s “disparate impact” provision altogether.Racial discrimination is wrong whether the victims are white, black or of any other race. But the justices acted tooPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 1 of 3soon and assumed too much, and in the process unjustifiably chipped away at a law meant to protect againstunfairness.DETAILSSubject: Reverse discrimination; Firefighters; Racial discrimination; Employee testing;Employee promotions; Supreme Court decisions; Editorials — Racial discriminationLocation: New Haven ConnecticutCompany / organization: Name: Supreme Court-US; NAICS: 922110Publication title: The Washington Post; Washington, D.C.Pages: A.12Publication year: 2009Publication date: Jun 30, 2009Section: EDITORIALPublisher: WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington PostPlace of publication: Washington, D.C.Country of publication: United States, Washington, D.C.Publication subject: General Interest Periodicals–United StatesISSN: 01908286Source type: NewspapersLanguage of publication: EnglishDocument type: EditorialProQuest document ID: 410283761Document URL: https://libauth.purdueglobal.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/flunking-test-supreme-court-should-have-had-more/docview/410283761/se-2?accountid=34544Copyright: Copyright The Washing ton Post Company Jun 30, 2009Last updated: 2017-11-10Database: ProQuest CentralPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 2 of 3LINKSDatabase copyright  2021 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuestPDF GENERATED BY PROQUEST.COM Page 3 of 3

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *