Justice for New Haven Firefighters

[Meister]

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

You do know that the legal language that you use is just what fucked up our great nation don't you? Lawyers always use it to baffle them with bullshit...just like what your doing nickie. Fact of the matter is that the test is not bias against blacks. They speak the same language as the hispanics, and whites. Now you can throw your legal crap, and try to confuse the issue....but there is no evedence to the contrary. By the way you keep saying that the conservatives are racists...can throw some links from a non conspiracy site out there to prove it...or is it just more of your useless blather?

 

[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]



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

You do know that the legal language that you use is just what fucked up our great nation don't you? Lawyers always use it to baffle them with bullshit...just like what your doing nickie. Fact of the matter is that the test is not bias against blacks. They speak the same language as the hispanics, and whites. Now you can throw your legal crap, and try to confuse the issue....but there is no evedence to the contrary. By the way you keep saying that the conservatives are racists...can throw some links from a non conspiracy site out there to prove it...or is it just more of your useless blather?

Oh well, if you say something is a fact, then its gotta be true

My legal crap...like what the law is? Yeah, the law says that racially disparate results means there is a presumption of racism, and then its up to the test maker to explain why the test wasn't actually racist. Argue with that all you want, but thats the law.

 

[Meister]

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



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

You do know that the legal language that you use is just what fucked up our great nation don't you? Lawyers always use it to baffle them with bullshit...just like what your doing nickie. Fact of the matter is that the test is not bias against blacks. They speak the same language as the hispanics, and whites. Now you can throw your legal crap, and try to confuse the issue....but there is no evedence to the contrary. By the way you keep saying that the conservatives are racists...can throw some links from a non conspiracy site out there to prove it...or is it just more of your useless blather?

Oh well, if you say something is a fact, then its gotta be true

My legal crap...like what the law is? Yeah, the law says that racially disparate results means there is a presumption of racism, and then its up to the test maker to explain why the test wasn't actually racist. Argue with that all you want, but thats the law.

Like I said in my prior post. grapple with that all you want, nikie.

 

[Yurt]

still waiting for ravi and nik to provide this supposed precedent that sotomayor could not overall.....

 

[Ravi]

Been there, done that. Apparently you can't read for comprehension.

 

[Nik]

still waiting for ravi and nik to provide this supposed precedent that sotomayor could not overall.....

I'm curious to see a precedent she can't overall too. I've heard shes quite the overaller.

 

[Bfgrn]

Court Rules for White Firefighters - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

In another case, the Supreme Court is intervening in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.

The court agreed Monday to take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other's permission.

Adding to the case's interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Ms. Sotomayor in a similar case. If confirmed, Ms. Sotomayor would sit on the court that hears the case next term.

The U.S. is among more than 80 countries that follow the treaty.

PS sorry I didn't catch the typo in the title. the edit function won't let me fix it.

The Supreme Court LEGISLATED from the bench... Sotomayor followed existing LAW in here opinion...

It just proves that the right has NO problem with activist judges, as long as THEY agree with the decision...

 

[Ravi]

Court Rules for White Firefighters - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

In another case, the Supreme Court is intervening in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.

The court agreed Monday to take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other's permission.

Adding to the case's interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Ms. Sotomayor in a similar case. If confirmed, Ms. Sotomayor would sit on the court that hears the case next term.

The U.S. is among more than 80 countries that follow the treaty.

PS sorry I didn't catch the typo in the title. the edit function won't let me fix it.

The Supreme Court LEGISLATED from the bench... Sotomayor followed existing LAW in here opinion...

It just proves that the right has NO problem with activist judges, as long as THEY agree with the decision...

I know, I've been chuckling over this for days.

The Federal Government telling states what they can do: BAD, unless of course it benefits white people.

I don't know how these wingnuts manage to get out of bed in the morning.

 

[Yurt]

still waiting for ravi and nik to provide this supposed precedent that sotomayor could not overall.....

I'm curious to see a precedent she can't overall too. I've heard shes quite the overaller.

lol....overrule

 

[Yurt]

Been there, done that. Apparently you can't read for comprehension.

this is now the second time i've asked for the link, i did not see it in that thread, why don't you provide it...

i would think that in order to make your point, you wouldn't keep pointing to some other thread as proof....

 

[Yurt]

Court Rules for White Firefighters - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

In another case, the Supreme Court is intervening in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.

The court agreed Monday to take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other's permission.

Adding to the case's interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Ms. Sotomayor in a similar case. If confirmed, Ms. Sotomayor would sit on the court that hears the case next term.

The U.S. is among more than 80 countries that follow the treaty.

PS sorry I didn't catch the typo in the title. the edit function won't let me fix it.

The Supreme Court LEGISLATED from the bench... Sotomayor followed existing LAW in here opinion...

It just proves that the right has NO problem with activist judges, as long as THEY agree with the decision...

exactly what law did she follow that she could aboslutely not depart from? i keep hearing this from you, nik, ravi....but none has provided any proof

 

[Trigg]

So you think I'm a racist because I think that a test where all the blacks just happen to do poorly has problems.

And yet you didn't speak out against WJ who said that blacks are systematically less intelligent.

Why is it that Republicans only become concerned about racism when they perceive racism against whites? Where is your concern about racism when someone outright says blacks are inferior?

WJ is widely ignored
but your rep is about what his is

Oh, I'm sure his is much better. The right loves racists, while they look down on rational thought or someone who might *gasp* actually argue for black equality.

Actually it could be argued that the left is more racist. Republicans simply want everyone on a level playing field. Everyone takes the same test, and whoever scores highest gets the position or the college spot.

The libs on the other hand are forever trying to award points on tests simply because of skin color or ethnicity. Unless the person is Asian of course, since they aren't a "suppressed minority". Presumably they're labeled that way because they have NO problem passing tests no matter who gives them.

Again, why are blacks the only ones who whine, cry, and sue when they fail to study?????

 

[DiveCon]

Court Rules for White Firefighters - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.

In another case, the Supreme Court is intervening in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.

The court agreed Monday to take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other's permission.

Adding to the case's interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Ms. Sotomayor in a similar case. If confirmed, Ms. Sotomayor would sit on the court that hears the case next term.

The U.S. is among more than 80 countries that follow the treaty.

PS sorry I didn't catch the typo in the title. the edit function won't let me fix it.

The Supreme Court LEGISLATED from the bench... Sotomayor followed existing LAW in here opinion...

It just proves that the right has NO problem with activist judges, as long as THEY agree with the decision...

wrong again, MORON
the SCOTUS used the Law

 

[Nik]

WJ is widely ignored
but your rep is about what his is

Oh, I'm sure his is much better. The right loves racists, while they look down on rational thought or someone who might *gasp* actually argue for black equality.

Actually it could be argued that the left is more racist. Republicans simply want everyone on a level playing field. Everyone takes the same test, and whoever scores highest gets the position or the college spot.

The libs on the other hand are forever trying to award points on tests simply because of skin color or ethnicity. Unless the person is Asian of course, since they aren't a "suppressed minority". Presumably they're labeled that way because they have NO problem passing tests no matter who gives them.

Again, why are blacks the only ones who whine, cry, and sue when they fail to study?????

Yeah Republicans want everyone on a level playing field. Except if you grow up in a poor area. Then its your own fault that you parents sucked, your schools sucked, and your neighborhood was shitty, and you should just take your lumps.

You want institutions to treat all people as having equal opportunities growing up. Of course thats obviously absurd, but Republicans never had much trouble believing absurdities.

 

[Trigg]

Oh, I'm sure his is much better. The right loves racists, while they look down on rational thought or someone who might *gasp* actually argue for black equality.

Actually it could be argued that the left is more racist. Republicans simply want everyone on a level playing field. Everyone takes the same test, and whoever scores highest gets the position or the college spot.

The libs on the other hand are forever trying to award points on tests simply because of skin color or ethnicity. Unless the person is Asian of course, since they aren't a "suppressed minority". Presumably they're labeled that way because they have NO problem passing tests no matter who gives them.

Again, why are blacks the only ones who whine, cry, and sue when they fail to study?????

Yeah Republicans want everyone on a level playing field. Except if you grow up in a poor area. Then its your own fault that you parents sucked, your schools sucked, and your neighborhood was shitty, and you should just take your lumps.

You want institutions to treat all people as having equal opportunities growing up. Of course thats obviously absurd, but Republicans never had much trouble believing absurdities.

So if people grow up poor they deserve a promotion more than another person?????? People who grow up rich all have great parents and poor people are all shitty parents who don't care????? Wonderful generalizations, no wonder libs are screwed up.

People from inner cty schools/trailor parks thrive everyday and become VERY wealthy. Oprah comes to mind for one.

Growing up in a poor area is no excuse for not studying.

 

[Bfgrn]

Court Rules for White Firefighters - WSJ.com




PS sorry I didn't catch the typo in the title. the edit function won't let me fix it.

The Supreme Court LEGISLATED from the bench... Sotomayor followed existing LAW in here opinion...

It just proves that the right has NO problem with activist judges, as long as THEY agree with the decision...

wrong again, MORON
the SCOTUS used the Law

NO pea brain; the Supreme Court REDEFINED and added to the law...THAT is called LEGISLATING from the bench...

 

[DiveCon]

The Supreme Court LEGISLATED from the bench... Sotomayor followed existing LAW in here opinion...

It just proves that the right has NO problem with activist judges, as long as THEY agree with the decision...

wrong again, MORON
the SCOTUS used the Law

NO pea brain; the Supreme Court REDEFINED and added to the law...THAT is called LEGISLATING from the bench...

no it didnt, asshole

 

[Yurt]

wrong again, MORON
the SCOTUS used the Law

NO pea brain; the Supreme Court REDEFINED and added to the law...THAT is called LEGISLATING from the bench...

no it didnt, asshole

it is seemingly pointless to debate this on this point. they point to no authority that sotomayor followed and that she could not depart from and now are claiming scotus legislated....

unbelievable...but you won't find them saying that if the decision created a special class for minorities

 

[Nik]

Actually it could be argued that the left is more racist. Republicans simply want everyone on a level playing field. Everyone takes the same test, and whoever scores highest gets the position or the college spot.

The libs on the other hand are forever trying to award points on tests simply because of skin color or ethnicity. Unless the person is Asian of course, since they aren't a "suppressed minority". Presumably they're labeled that way because they have NO problem passing tests no matter who gives them.

Again, why are blacks the only ones who whine, cry, and sue when they fail to study?????

Yeah Republicans want everyone on a level playing field. Except if you grow up in a poor area. Then its your own fault that you parents sucked, your schools sucked, and your neighborhood was shitty, and you should just take your lumps.

You want institutions to treat all people as having equal opportunities growing up. Of course thats obviously absurd, but Republicans never had much trouble believing absurdities.

So if people grow up poor they deserve a promotion more than another person?????? People who grow up rich all have great parents and poor people are all shitty parents who don't care????? Wonderful generalizations, no wonder libs are screwed up.

People from inner cty schools/trailor parks thrive everyday and become VERY wealthy. Oprah comes to mind for one.

Growing up in a poor area is no excuse for not studying.

Oh, well, anecdotal evidence makes it A OK. And nobody said it was always like that, try to avoid creating strawmen.

Any evidence that they didn't study in this case?

 

[Bfgrn]

wrong again, MORON
the SCOTUS used the Law

NO pea brain; the Supreme Court REDEFINED and added to the law...THAT is called LEGISLATING from the bench...

no it didnt, asshole

Do you understand WHAT legislating from the bench IS? It's not rocket science... the law has been REINTERPRETED, REVISED, CHANGED, ...


Prior to the Supreme Court's decision yesterday, it was clear that an employer was obligated to avoid causing unintentional impact on a racial minority in hiring, unless the methods used for hiring decisions could be justified as a business necessity and were shown to be not more harmful to the minority than other possible hiring practices.

The Supreme Court's decision changed the analysis, by asserting that when Congress mandated that employers avoid disparate impact in hiring, they must prove that they had a strong fear of losing a lawsuit on this basis or they will be liable for discriminating against the majority.

As Justice Ginsburg points out in her dissent, this is a new approach to dealing with disparate impact cases, where previously the Court had not viewed the avoidance of disparate impact on minorities as discriminatory toward the majority. Indeed, there is no discrimination if the employer is merely rectifying a wrong.

Avi Frisch is a lawyer in Paramus and Manhattan.
http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/what-does-ricci-v-destefano-say-about-judge-sotomayor