ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

High Court finds Title VII violation in firefighter reverse discrimination case

By Bernard Hibbitts (editor) and University of Pittsburgh School of Law students.

ADVERTISEMENTS
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court on Monday overturned a lower court ruling dismissing racial discrimination challenges to the promotion criteria used by the fire department of New Haven, CT. The Court ruled 5-4 in Ricci v. DeStefano that a "strong basis in evidence" that an employer would be liable under a Title VII disparate impact analysis is necessary to justify a "race-based" action that would otherwise violate Title VII's disparate treatment standard. The Court ruled that summary judgment on disparate treatment grounds in favor of firefighters who were not promoted despite high test scores was appropriate, finding that the prima facie disparate impact case demonstrated by the City did not meet the "strong basis in evidence" standard. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that: there is no evidence - let alone the required strong basis in evidence - that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the City. Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. The Court also noted that a disparate impact suit brought as a result of the City certifying the test results would now fail because there is strong evidence that "had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate treatment liability." Having resolved the issue on Title VII grounds, the Court did not reach the petitioners' Equal Protection claim. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer joined. The case gained prominence after Sonia Sotomayor, who ruled on the case at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, was nominated to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of Justice David Souter. Sotomayor's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin on July 13.

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on June 29, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0196 secs (new cache)