Thread: White Firefighters Win Supreme Court Appeal

Originally Posted by mhailey

This decision is as it should be.
Matt

Exactly. If you want discrimination based on race to stop, then why on earth would you even care about the demographic at all? That's like saying we don't do affirmative action, but unless there is a black person and a hispanic person passing the test, it's not valid...???

Originally Posted by singlewedge

If you are the only person of your race working at a place and are constantly denied promotions and others are getting them this decision, IMO, takes away your right to sue the employer for discrimination.

I think the decision goes too far. I personally do not like hiring someone based on a quota but if my right to sue goes away when I am clearly being discriminated against, but a test says that I am deficient in some way and this is what my employer is basing everything on. Clearly that sucks.

I am the only Bruno working at my place. If I get denied promotion, I will sue because it's clear that they prefer non-Brunos for the good positions...

See how silly that sounds
If for some reason there is one black guy and 9 white guys who are up for promotion, then logic dictates that all else being equal, he only has a 10% chanc being chosen, just like all the white guys. And it would mean that it is almost a given that the promotion will go to a white guy. That is not discrimination. 8 other white guys didn;t get that promotion either.

And then some. Picking someone because he's black is just as dumb as picking someone because he's white.

Originally Posted by Basset

There was some evidence that there was unequal access to resource materials (some stuff was back-ordered) which were expensive ($500 or more).

Thank you for your long and detailed posts Mr Basset.

I find this particular sentence troubling.

Perhaps I should sue an employer if the other applicant passes a test due to a college education that I could not afford?
College is expensive, more than $500, and someone from a wealthy family would be more likely to attend, and therefore the deck is stacked against me.
At least according to this logic.

People need to just stop whining. If they don't get promoted because of race then either the manager is a jerk and it should be taken up with upper management or you should find a company that you WOULD like to work for.

In the case of being a firefighter I can imagine this might be tough....not not much less true.

Over here (mostly) all the sueing people do in the states comes off as quite the joke. I'm sure it's not all as redicilous as it looks but come on already.

Sueing is NOT the answer when you're having a problem with your employer.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

People need to just stop whining. If they don't get promoted because of race then either the manager is a jerk and it should be taken up with upper management or you should find a company that you WOULD like to work for.

In the case of being a firefighter I can imagine this might be tough....not not much less true.

Over here (mostly) all the sueing people do in the states comes off as quite the joke. I'm sure it's not all as redicilous as it looks but come on already.

Sueing is NOT the answer when you're having a problem with your employer.

For firefighters and police, the union gives criteria for tests(like the number of multiple choice,etc...) and has to give their seal of approval before its used.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

Thank you for your long and detailed posts Mr Basset.

I find this particular sentence troubling.

Perhaps I should sue an employer if the other applicant passes a test due to a college education that I could not afford?
College is expensive, more than $500, and someone from a wealthy family would be more likely to attend, and therefore the deck is stacked against me.
At least according to this logic.

I told you I couldn't do justice to the facts. Here's a pertinent portion from the dissent that addresses book access. The dissent doesn't treat this as a dispositive factor, but notes that it weakens the claim that everyone had equal access to the study materials:

"At least two candidates opposed to certification noted unequal access to study materials. Some individuals, they asserted, had the necessary books even before the syllabus was issued. Others had to invest substantial sums to purchase the materials and “wait a month and a half for some of the books because they were on back-order.” Id., at A858. These disparities, it was suggested, fell at least in part along racial lines. While many Caucasian applicants could obtain materials and assistance from relatives in the fire service, the over-whelming majority of minority applicants were “first-generation firefighters” without such support networks.See id., at A857–A861, A886–A887"

I'm dropping out of the thread, but will heartily recommend that folks actually read the Court's decision, not just someone's distallation of it, including my feeble attempt.

So they did not have the advantages of the people from a line / network of firefighters.

The same situation will exist with people coming from a line of lawyers, policemen, special forces units, or whatever. Even in martial arts, there are few people with better opportunities than the sons of martial arts grand masters. They get tutoring from the moment they can walk, they learn all the good stuff and they are next in line for the title.

Life is not fair. Look at where you want to get and then figure out a way to get there. In this case, they may or may not have been at a disadvantage for the current exam, but nothing prevented them from getting ready for the next one / starting their own network.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there was none.

Fixed it for you.

Now I just need to go back and read it all to make sure I haven't made a fool of myself.

Edit>No I'm happy with my comment. In addition:

Title VII not only forbids intentional discrimination, but also discrimination by means of a "disparate impact."

Seems to me that Title VII is itself guilty of intentional (and quite blatant) discrimination.

Here we have another example of the English language being perverted to suit a political cause. "Discrimination" is a good thing. It means making a choice based on facts. Only unfair discrimination is bad. As I've said before, when you interpret a word differently to its literal meaning it makes it impossible to have a rational discussion.

Definitions of discriminate on the Web:
* recognize or perceive the difference

Originally Posted by Basset

I am also curious who is familiar with the assessment center approach to evaluating firefighters -- rather than using a written test, the fire depts send the candidates to be judged on the basis of live scenarios, group interviews, oral exams, as well as written exams. The written exams are weighted slightly less than the real-time performance. The dissent points out that the disparate impact on minorities tends to drop dramatically when this approach, rather than the written test approach is used.

Anyone familiar with the assessment center approach? I would love to hear more about them. Evidently many municipal depts. use them.

I am familiar with assessment centers (this is part of what my graduate degree is in), you pretty much gave the gist of it. The problem is that they are very expensive for the returns you get, especially when you can get similar predictive power out of a well constructed structured interview. As far as selection systems and adverse impact go, this is still a very dicey topic. I just heard a presentation given by the head scientist at the EEOC, and they don't even have good suggestions for making a really fair and defensible selection system (their words). Assessment centers can be really good as long as they are based on accurate performance dimensions, but often having a valid center created, and pulling it all off is expensive. Otherwise they usually aren't based on accurate performance dimensions, and the door is open again for lawsuits.