Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[manifold]

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

Would it be too much trouble to ask you for your Westlaw password and Client ID?

What a lying douche!

 

[Nik]

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.

You would know, eh?

Leaf?

 

[Nik]

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

Would it be too much trouble to ask you for your Westlaw password and Client ID?

What a lying douche!

Yes, it would.

You wanted a link, I provided it. Not my fault its behind a wall. I thought you had already read the district court opinion anyway? Or was that another one of your lies?

 

[del]

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.

You would know, eh?

Leaf?

would know that your less attractive than herpes? i don't know it for a fact, but it's a working hypothesis.

 

[Nik]

hey, i'm here for you, liar.

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

You would know, eh?

Leaf?

would know that your less attractive than herpes? i don't know it for a fact, but it's a working hypothesis.

Reading comprehension fail.

Try again?

 

[del]

You would know, eh?

Leaf?

would know that your less attractive than herpes? i don't know it for a fact, but it's a working hypothesis.

Reading comprehension fail.

Try again?

snappy comeback, liar. more like a lame attempted insult fail on your part, junior.

 

[manifold]

You wanted a link, I provided it. Not my fault its behind a wall. I thought you had already read the district court opinion anyway? Or was that another one of your lies?

It is your responsibility to provide an accessible link to websites you are quoting. Them's the rules. I know Del's watching, but I still think I'm going to have to officially report you.

We both know that if you were being honest, you'd have no problem posting an accessible link.

 

[Nik]

You wanted a link, I provided it. Not my fault its behind a wall. I thought you had already read the district court opinion anyway? Or was that another one of your lies?

It is your responsibility to provide an accessible link to websites you are quoting. Them's the rules. I know Del's watching, but I still think I'm going to have to officially report you.

We both know that if you were being honest, you'd have no problem posting an accessible link.

Go for it. Its NOT copyrighted. Therefore, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, bitch.

Besides the fact that you claimed that you READ the opinion. Was that a lie Mani? Had you actually read that opinion? If so, you should be able to access it again, correct?

I have no idea where an accessible link is. I don't need to look for accessible links. I'm happy to post the whole opinion if you actually want to read it and educate yourself, but as for your lie that what I did was against board rules, you are factually incorrect. Public opinions are not copyrighted.

 

[Ravi]

thh! Mani lie?

Here is a link to the opinion btw, read and and report back Manipoo.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02CTXC/06-03903.PDF

 

[Nik]

thh! Mani lie?

Here is a link to the opinion btw, read and and report back Manipoo.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02CTXC/06-03903.PDF

Hey, its true now. Because according to Mani if its not available for free on the internets, it must not be true. Such a standard that man has, such a standard.

 

[del]

thh! Mani lie?

Here is a link to the opinion btw, read and and report back Manipoo.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02CTXC/06-03903.PDF

Hey, its true now. Because according to Mani if its not available for free on the internets, it must not be true. Such a standard that man has, such a standard.

more lies from the liar. you've got a gift for it.

 

[Nik]

thh! Mani lie?

Here is a link to the opinion btw, read and and report back Manipoo.

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02CTXC/06-03903.PDF

Hey, its true now. Because according to Mani if its not available for free on the internets, it must not be true. Such a standard that man has, such a standard.

more lies from the liar. you've got a gift for it.

And your going to whine and bitch and throw out unsupported assertions some more, eh?

Leaf?

 

[manifold]

Here is a link to the opinion btw, read and and report back Manipoo.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02CTXC/06-03903.PDF

Yep. For the umpteenth time it would seem that I am right and you are wrong.

C'est la vie.

 

[Nik]

Here is a link to the opinion btw, read and and report back Manipoo.
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02CTXC/06-03903.PDF

Yep. For the umpteenth time it would seem that I am right and you are wrong.

C'est la vie.

Oh well, since you say it, it must be true.

I pasted the relevant section from the decision, which you supposedly read. Why couldn't you get the link for yourself since you had claimed to have already read it? Why can't you actually respond to what I posted?

 

[del]

Hey, its true now. Because according to Mani if its not available for free on the internets, it must not be true. Such a standard that man has, such a standard.

more lies from the liar. you've got a gift for it.

And your going to whine and bitch and throw out unsupported assertions some more, eh?

Leaf?

nah, i'll leave that to you, lil nikki.
you're gifted.

 

[Nik]

more lies from the liar. you've got a gift for it.

And your going to whine and bitch and throw out unsupported assertions some more, eh?

Leaf?

nah, i'll leave that to you, lil nikki.
you're gifted.

Well apparently I must not be doing it, since one seem to be doing it constantly.

 

[del]

And your going to whine and bitch and throw out unsupported assertions some more, eh?

Leaf?

nah, i'll leave that to you, lil nikki.
you're gifted.

Well apparently I must not be doing it, since one seem to be doing it constantly.

try again, en inglese, por favor

 

[manifold]

I didnt' just read a flawed opinion, I went a step further and read the full text of the law referenced.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunities - 42 US Code Chapter 21

Section 2000e-2[k]

(k) Burden of proof in disparate impact cases
(1)(A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact
is established under this subchapter only if -
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a
particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and
the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice
is job related for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity; or
(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in
subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment
practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative
employment practice.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunities - 42 US Code Chapter 21 | find US law

PWNED!
​

 

[Nik]

nah, i'll leave that to you, lil nikki.
you're gifted.

Well apparently I must not be doing it, since one seem to be doing it constantly.

try again, en inglese, por favor

I was just using your supposed grammar corrections. I thought it would translate seamlessly?

 

[Nik]

I didnt' just read a flawed opinion, I went a step further and read the full text of the law referenced.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunities - 42 US Code Chapter 21

Section 2000e-2[k]

(k) Burden of proof in disparate impact cases
(1)(A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact
is established under this subchapter only if -
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a
particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and
the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice
is job related for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity; or
(ii) the complaining party makes the demonstration described in
subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment
practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative
employment practice.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunities - 42 US Code Chapter 21 | find US law

PWNED!
​

Are you really this stupid? Lets break this down, since you apparently have trouble reading English.

complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a
particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and
the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice
is job related for the position in question and consistent with
business necessity;

A complaining party (Black firefighters) demonstrate that the respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact. And the respondent (the city) fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related.

This means that the disparate impact creates a presumption of racism, and then that it is up to the city to say that there is a good reason for that racism. Thanks for pointing out how the statute proves what I said before