High Court Poised To Closely Weigh Civil Rights Laws

Washington Post ^ | April 19, 2009 | Robert Barnes

[reaganaut1]

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to reaffirm or reshape the nation's civil rights laws as it faces a rare confluence of cases over the next two weeks, including a high-profile challenge brought by white firefighters who claim they lost out on promotions because of the "color of their skin."

...

The most emotionally charged case is from the New Haven, Conn., firefighters, whose complaints define the real-life quandary that sometimes accompanies government efforts to ensure racial equality.

The firefighters accuse city officials of violating civil rights laws and the Constitution by throwing out a promotions test on which they performed well but no blacks scored high enough to be eligible. The city responds that relying on test results with such wide racial discrepancies could have violated federal law and left them open to being sued by minorities.

...

When the results of the 2003 exams came back, only white firefighters, including one who is Hispanic, scored high enough to be considered for the openings for lieutenants and captains. All 27 black firefighters who took the test were below the cutoff.

After tumultuous public hearings, with minority groups arguing that the tests were flawed and the white firefighters saying officials were caving to political pressure, the city's Civil Service Board voted not to certify the results. The promotions remain in limbo.

The city argues that the test it commissioned, in which 60 percent of the score came from a multiple-choice questionnaire and 40 percent from an interview, must have been biased, despite its best intentions. It is not specific about the problems with the test, though it says the exam did not measure "command presence" and should have given more weight to the interview.

[Maceman]

Excellent point.

[gitmo]

At any rate, the city says it was bound by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which requires employers not to rely on hiring or promotional tests that have a "disparate impact" on minorities unless they can show a "business necessity."

So the Constitution requires hiring based on race to achieve statistical balance even in the face of objective tests unless the employer can demonstrate a "business necessity." One can hardly think of an occupation where job performance is more of a "business necessity" than climbing through the fourth story window of a burning building to save grandma.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me this is NOT what the Constitution requires, but rather what Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act says. Two different things. It seems to me that the 14th Amendment would make this part of Title null and void.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(emphasis mine)

[Iron Munro]

SCOTUS: No time to decide if a president must be legally qualified to occupy the office as defined by the constitution.

How can anyone have one iota of respect for the Supreme Court when they dodge, weave and evade the most important constitutional issue of the day?

All of caucasion Washington DC, the media and liberals across America are play acting that there is no Obama birth certificate issue because they are so desperate to prove to themselves they are free of racial predjudice.

Meanwhile, Komrade Inkompetent The Usurper dismantles the constitutional republic and steals the birthright of our children and generations of Americans yet to be born.

The Supreme Court is just another part of the corrupt, unethical federal political machine, governed by their own agenda and goals rather than the Constitution and their oath of office.

[okie01]

A simple disparity in results in insufficient to prove bias in the nature of the test.

Unless you're dealing with the ACLU, the civil rights legal pimps and the Civil Rights Section of the Justice Department.

[gitmo]

This matter stands as yet another reason why I say that all politics in America is not local, but racial..........

Interesting, although it seems to apply to liberals and not conservatives.

[ops33]

Yours is a very good point. Questions about race are always asked but can anybody actually define race?

[Chode]

how in the hell can questions related to firefighting be racially bias??? please.

[Don Corleone]

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to reaffirm or reshape the nation's civil rights laws as it faces a rare confluence of cases over the next two weeks, including a high-profile challenge brought by white firefighters who claim they lost out on promotions because of the "color of their skin."

Small potato(e)s compared to the BC question. First things first!

[dennisw]

The SC judges will decide based on their politics. The liberals are unprincipled and will fish for legal justification for the minority opinion or majority opinion. I’m hoping minority for this case

Affirmative action is so wacked that immigrants can get it! People who were never slaves and came here eagerly. Hindu immigrants have gotten small business loan preferences due to AA. Buy a motel I guess lol
A Haitian immigrant and his children get on the AA gravy train too

[timm22]

The city argues that the test it commissioned, in which 60 percent of the score came from a multiple-choice questionnaire and 40 percent from an interview, must have been biased, despite its best intentions. It is not specific about the problems with the test, though it says the exam did not measure "command presence" and should have given more weight to the interview.

Why is it than whenever these tests are challenged the alleged victims say that more weight should be given to the interview or other less-objective measures?

If the organization is so devious that they rigged a multiple choice test against you, what makes you think they are going to give you a fair chance on the interview? If the organization really is biased against you, consciously or subconsciously, then how is giving more weight to the *interview* going to help? If anything, that's an even easier way for them to weed out minorities since the evaluators can point to subjective, hard-to-verify reasons for excluding a minority applicant. On a multiple choice test you're facing the same questions as your peers and giving the same response MUST result in getting the same points.

Unless, of course, there really is no discrimination going on and some people just don't like the results of a fair test.