Obsidian Potency 3.0
Why Sotomayor rejected the claims of reverse racism by firefighters.
posted Wednesday, 27 May 2009
Right now, conservatives are buzzing about how Supreme Court candidate Sonia Sotomayor's decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by white firefighters. These firefighters (or one of them, anyway) claimed that New Haven's decision to throw out a new promotional exam because no blacks got promoted by the process as "reverse discrimination."
Both the firefighters and the outraged pundits are wrong. Actually, this case wasn't anything of the sort. Sotomayor's decision was not born of activism. Rather, it was a result of the fact that deciding in favor of the firefighters would have been a clear departure from Title VII, a long-standing federal civil rights law that makes hiring discrimination and adverse impact illegal unless the employer can prove the selection procedure is completely job-relevant, and also prove that no alternative procedures exist that produce results that lack adverse impact.
This Slate article is an excellent outline of the reasoning behind the unanimous decision of Sotomayor and the other two judges involved in rendering it. Don't believe the hype that her opinion was excessively dismisive, or that it wasn't based on sound reasoning. It's one thing to disagree with Title VII. It's a whole separate matter to claim that any judge who decides a case using Title VII as his/her support is some kind of liberal activist. There may be proof Sotomayor is the kind of judge conservatives fear. But you won't find it in that particular case.
George Will wrote today that "Before Sotomayor's confirmation hearings begin, the Supreme Court probably will overturn a ruling she supported on the 2nd Circuit -- the propriety of New Haven, Conn., canceling fire department promotions because there were no African Americans (although there was a Hispanic) among the 18 firemen the selection test made eligible for promotion. A three-judge panel of 2nd Circuit judges, including Sotomayor, affirmed a district court's dismissal of the firemen's complaint, doing so in a perfunctory and unpublished order that acknowledged none of the large constitutional questions involved."
Really? Maybe she didn't consider those "large constitutional questions involved" because she didn't have to. All she had to consider was that ruling in favor of the plaintiff would have destroyed a pivotal civil rights law. If someone doesn't like the law, they can fight to have it changed. But this argument makes it seem that pundits like Will only want their judges to maintain the rule of law when it is a law they agree with. Allow me to use Will's own words to counter his assertion that Sotomayor should have ruled against the fire department -- and thus, ruled against Title VII: "Such personalization of the judicial function subverts the rule of law."
Since adverse impact and selection is a field I am intimately familiar with, I could easily go into much more detail to justify the New Haven fire department's decision to throw out their promotional procedures. But I'll spare readers those gruesome details unless someone requests them. I could even provide an example of whites suing for discrimination using Title VII...and winning. Again, I will respond if asked.
Both the firefighters and the outraged pundits are wrong. Actually, this case wasn't anything of the sort. Sotomayor's decision was not born of activism. Rather, it was a result of the fact that deciding in favor of the firefighters would have been a clear departure from Title VII, a long-standing federal civil rights law that makes hiring discrimination and adverse impact illegal unless the employer can prove the selection procedure is completely job-relevant, and also prove that no alternative procedures exist that produce results that lack adverse impact.
This Slate article is an excellent outline of the reasoning behind the unanimous decision of Sotomayor and the other two judges involved in rendering it. Don't believe the hype that her opinion was excessively dismisive, or that it wasn't based on sound reasoning. It's one thing to disagree with Title VII. It's a whole separate matter to claim that any judge who decides a case using Title VII as his/her support is some kind of liberal activist. There may be proof Sotomayor is the kind of judge conservatives fear. But you won't find it in that particular case.
George Will wrote today that "Before Sotomayor's confirmation hearings begin, the Supreme Court probably will overturn a ruling she supported on the 2nd Circuit -- the propriety of New Haven, Conn., canceling fire department promotions because there were no African Americans (although there was a Hispanic) among the 18 firemen the selection test made eligible for promotion. A three-judge panel of 2nd Circuit judges, including Sotomayor, affirmed a district court's dismissal of the firemen's complaint, doing so in a perfunctory and unpublished order that acknowledged none of the large constitutional questions involved."
Really? Maybe she didn't consider those "large constitutional questions involved" because she didn't have to. All she had to consider was that ruling in favor of the plaintiff would have destroyed a pivotal civil rights law. If someone doesn't like the law, they can fight to have it changed. But this argument makes it seem that pundits like Will only want their judges to maintain the rule of law when it is a law they agree with. Allow me to use Will's own words to counter his assertion that Sotomayor should have ruled against the fire department -- and thus, ruled against Title VII: "Such personalization of the judicial function subverts the rule of law."
Since adverse impact and selection is a field I am intimately familiar with, I could easily go into much more detail to justify the New Haven fire department's decision to throw out their promotional procedures. But I'll spare readers those gruesome details unless someone requests them. I could even provide an example of whites suing for discrimination using Title VII...and winning. Again, I will respond if asked.
Want to read comments, or have something to say? Bring it.
Obsidian Hit Counter
Total: 407,564
since: 18 Oct 2004
since: 18 Oct 2004