Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[Nik]

I doubt anyone can pry open the mind of Ravi when it comes to core principles of political correctness, but I'll indulge.

Evidence that the test was fair:

- They hired an outside consulting outfit to prepare an unbiased, relevant exam for the specific purpose of evaluating a firefighter's suitability for promotion.

- The unions agreed that this was fair

- Nobody was disallowed participation on the basis of race

- Everyone was given the same curriculum requirements and study material

- Everyone was permitted the same amount of time to complete the exam

- There have been no specific, credible examples produced of any questions that are racially biased. And if you don't think it's been scoured for such, you're even dumber than you're projecting.

This is what you have? Pathetic.

-Well if its an outside consulting firm, it can't be biased!

-Hmm, which racial group has more power in the unions?

-No shit sherlock. They didn't put the blacks in chains while t hey were taking the test either. The abscence of horrendous, obvious, and blatant discriminatory actions does not mean there is also an abscence of subtle discriminatory actions.

-See above.

-See above.

-Absence of proof for something is not proof of the opposite of that claim.

By the way...you didn't prove any links for those claims.

Next?

 

[Nik]

Still waiting for a link to this alleged presumption of bias federal law.

Did you read the district court opinion?

which part of "post a link" baffles you, liar?

Why should I post a link to something if he's already read it?

And if he hasn't read it, why the fuck is he commenting on it?

 

[manifold]

I doubt anyone can pry open the mind of Ravi when it comes to core principles of political correctness, but I'll indulge.

Evidence that the test was fair:

- They hired an outside consulting outfit to prepare an unbiased, relevant exam for the specific purpose of evaluating a firefighter's suitability for promotion.

- The unions agreed that this was fair

- Nobody was disallowed participation on the basis of race

- Everyone was given the same curriculum requirements and study material

- Everyone was permitted the same amount of time to complete the exam

- There have been no specific, credible examples produced of any questions that are racially biased. And if you don't think it's been scoured for such, you're even dumber than you're projecting.

This is what you have? Pathetic.

-Well if its an outside consulting firm, it can't be biased!

-Hmm, which racial group has more power in the unions?

-No shit sherlock. They didn't put the blacks in chains while t hey were taking the test either. The abscence of horrendous, obvious, and blatant discriminatory actions does not mean there is also an abscence of subtle discriminatory actions.

-See above.

-See above.

-Absence of proof for something is not proof of the opposite of that claim.

By the way...you didn't prove any links for those claims.

Next?

Feel free to ignore reality and start another conspiracy hypothesis.

It was the man holding back the darkies!

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, actually, he didn't say they weren't discriminatory. Try reading that sentence you quoted again. He said there was no evidence they could have made them less discriminatory, not that they weren't discriminatory.

tests are supposed to be discriminatory the people who don't know their shit are discriminated against
and if you want to pick nits, Kennedy actually said there is no evidence that equally valid less discriminatory tests were available

thus implying that this test was about as good as it gets for its purpose.

Are you lying, or do you really not understand that when he says discriminatory he means racial discrimination?

I know what he said. you have no proof that he "means" racial discrimination. and how can i be lying if i quoted someone?

there you go making assumptions again.

 

[manifold]

I've read it Nik. You are a liar.

Next.

 

[Nik]

I doubt anyone can pry open the mind of Ravi when it comes to core principles of political correctness, but I'll indulge.

Evidence that the test was fair:

- They hired an outside consulting outfit to prepare an unbiased, relevant exam for the specific purpose of evaluating a firefighter's suitability for promotion.

- The unions agreed that this was fair

- Nobody was disallowed participation on the basis of race

- Everyone was given the same curriculum requirements and study material

- Everyone was permitted the same amount of time to complete the exam

- There have been no specific, credible examples produced of any questions that are racially biased. And if you don't think it's been scoured for such, you're even dumber than you're projecting.

This is what you have? Pathetic.

-Well if its an outside consulting firm, it can't be biased!

-Hmm, which racial group has more power in the unions?

-No shit sherlock. They didn't put the blacks in chains while t hey were taking the test either. The abscence of horrendous, obvious, and blatant discriminatory actions does not mean there is also an abscence of subtle discriminatory actions.

-See above.

-See above.

-Absence of proof for something is not proof of the opposite of that claim.

By the way...you didn't prove any links for those claims.

Next?

Feel free to ignore reality and start another conspiracy hypothesis.

It was the man holding back the darkies!

And I thought you might have a serious conversation for once.

*shrug* if you want to throw around rhetoric, why are you so racist, Mani?

 

[del]

I doubt anyone can pry open the mind of Ravi when it comes to core principles of political correctness, but I'll indulge.

Evidence that the test was fair:

- They hired an outside consulting outfit to prepare an unbiased, relevant exam for the specific purpose of evaluating a firefighter's suitability for promotion.

- The unions agreed that this was fair

- Nobody was disallowed participation on the basis of race

- Everyone was given the same curriculum requirements and study material

- Everyone was permitted the same amount of time to complete the exam

- There have been no specific, credible examples produced of any questions that are racially biased. And if you don't think it's been scoured for such, you're even dumber than you're projecting.

This is what you have? Pathetic.

-Well if its an outside consulting firm, it can't be biased!

-Hmm, which racial group has more power in the unions?

-No shit sherlock. They didn't put the blacks in chains while t hey were taking the test either. The abscence of horrendous, obvious, and blatant discriminatory actions does not mean there is also an abscence of subtle discriminatory actions.

-See above.

-See above.

-Absence of proof for something is not proof of the opposite of that claim.

By the way...you didn't prove any links for those claims.

Next?

Feel free to ignore reality and start another conspiracy hypothesis.

It was the man holding back the darkies!

 

[manifold]

I just googled presumption of bias new haven and the first link related to this case (second link overall) is this fucking thread!

What does that tell you?

 

[Nik]

I've read it Nik. You are a liar.

Next.

Really?

From the opinion:

The EEOC's Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures create a presumption that “[t]he use of any selection procedure which has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment or membership opportunities of members of any race, sex, or ethnic group will be considered to be discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the procedure has been validated in accordance with these guidelines.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.3(A).

You sure you read it Mani?

 

[Nik]

I just googled presumption of bias new haven and the first link related to this case (second link overall) is this fucking thread!

What does that tell you?

Nothing, really.

Next?

 

[Nik]

Also see this:

Specifically, the EEOC “four-fifths rule” provides that a selection tool that yields “[a] selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D).


Here, the evidence shows that on the 2003 Lieutenant's exam the pass rate for whites was 60.5%, for African-Americans 31.6% and Hispanics 20%. The four-fifths score would be 48%. In other words, African-Americans had a pass rate that was about half the pass rate for Caucasians, yielding an adverse impact ratio (“AIR”) of 0.59, significantly below the AIR of 0.80 that is presumed to not evidence adverse impact under the EEOC Guidelines. See Pl. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246; Def. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246. While the parties dispute the Captain's exam pass rate for African-*154 Americans and Hispanics ( see supra note 7), the pass rate for Caucasians was 88%, which is more than double that of minorities and thus by either party's statistic an AIR far below the four-fifths guideline is yielded.

 

[manifold]

I've read it Nik. You are a liar.

Next.

Really?

From the opinion:

The EEOC's Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures create a presumption that “[t]he use of any selection procedure which has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment or membership opportunities of members of any race, sex, or ethnic group will be considered to be discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the procedure has been validated in accordance with these guidelines.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.3(A).

You sure you read it Mani?

You left out the part the it must also be unrelated to success on the job.

Gee, I wonder why?

And you're breaking board rules by posting that without the link.

 

[manifold]

Also see this:

Specifically, the EEOC “four-fifths rule” provides that a selection tool that yields “[a] selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D).


Here, the evidence shows that on the 2003 Lieutenant's exam the pass rate for whites was 60.5%, for African-Americans 31.6% and Hispanics 20%. The four-fifths score would be 48%. In other words, African-Americans had a pass rate that was about half the pass rate for Caucasians, yielding an adverse impact ratio (“AIR”) of 0.59, significantly below the AIR of 0.80 that is presumed to not evidence adverse impact under the EEOC Guidelines. See Pl. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246; Def. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246. While the parties dispute the Captain's exam pass rate for African-*154 Americans and Hispanics ( see supra note 7), the pass rate for Caucasians was 88%, which is more than double that of minorities and thus by either party's statistic an AIR far below the four-fifths guideline is yielded.

Link please?

It's the rules you know.

 

[Ravi]

It's pretty clear to me that mani hasn't read anything but has formed his opinion from media sources heavily influenced by his confirmation bias.

But this is nothing new.

 

[manifold]

Ravi offering zero rebuttal and just personal attacks. My oh my, I've never seen her do that before.

The test was fair, the city's decision to throw it out was not. It's pretty obvious, unless you're an idiot or have an agenda to peddle.

 

[Nik]

Also see this:

Specifically, the EEOC “four-fifths rule” provides that a selection tool that yields “[a] selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D).


Here, the evidence shows that on the 2003 Lieutenant's exam the pass rate for whites was 60.5%, for African-Americans 31.6% and Hispanics 20%. The four-fifths score would be 48%. In other words, African-Americans had a pass rate that was about half the pass rate for Caucasians, yielding an adverse impact ratio (“AIR”) of 0.59, significantly below the AIR of 0.80 that is presumed to not evidence adverse impact under the EEOC Guidelines. See Pl. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246; Def. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246. While the parties dispute the Captain's exam pass rate for African-*154 Americans and Hispanics ( see supra note 7), the pass rate for Caucasians was 88%, which is more than double that of minorities and thus by either party's statistic an AIR far below the four-fifths guideline is yielded.

Link please?

It's the rules you know.

*shrug*

http://web2.westlaw.com/result/defa...Search&query=TI(RICCI+&+DESTEFANO)&method=TNC

 

[Nik]

I've read it Nik. You are a liar.

Next.

Really?

From the opinion:

The EEOC's Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures create a presumption that “[t]he use of any selection procedure which has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment or membership opportunities of members of any race, sex, or ethnic group will be considered to be discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the procedure has been validated in accordance with these guidelines.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.3(A).

You sure you read it Mani?

You left out the part the it must also be unrelated to success on the job.

Gee, I wonder why?

And you're breaking board rules by posting that without the link.

There was no part about how it must also be unrelated to success on the job. I am talking about the DISTRICT court opinion, fuckwit.

Please cite me the rule that I broke.

 

[del]

Really?

From the opinion:



You sure you read it Mani?

You left out the part the it must also be unrelated to success on the job.

Gee, I wonder why?

And you're breaking board rules by posting that without the link.

There was no part about how it must also be unrelated to success on the job. I am talking about the DISTRICT court opinion, fuckwit.

Please cite me the rule that I broke.

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material

here you go fuckroast, so simple a law student could do it.

 

[Nik]

You left out the part the it must also be unrelated to success on the job.

Gee, I wonder why?

And you're breaking board rules by posting that without the link.

There was no part about how it must also be unrelated to success on the job. I am talking about the DISTRICT court opinion, fuckwit.

Please cite me the rule that I broke.

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material

here you go fuckroast, so simple a law student could do it.

Public court opinions aren't copyrighted.

Thanks for helpin me out, bitch. Guess you have some use after all.

 

[del]

There was no part about how it must also be unrelated to success on the job. I am talking about the DISTRICT court opinion, fuckwit.

Please cite me the rule that I broke.

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting copyrighted material, please use small sections or link to the article. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, regardless of how you originally came across the material

here you go fuckroast, so simple a law student could do it.

Public court opinions aren't copyrighted.

Thanks for helpin me out, bitch. Guess you have some use after all.

hey, i'm here for you, liar.

you're the gift that keeps on giving, like herpes, only less attractive.