In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court has just ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, CT, were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. The case is RICCI et al v DeSTEFANO et al.
This case pointed out the possible conflict in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pitting disparate treatment against disparate impact.
Any comments?
Bill, isn’t this the case that the new Supreme Court justice nominee, Sonja Sotomayor, ruled against as a Federal Court of Appeals judge? So the high court just overturned her opinion?
An article in the Washington Post says this about the decision:
Here’s the link to that article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608_pf.html
Comment by mary — June 29, 2009 @ 11:17 am
Yes. However, the real issue is how and if it is possible to eliminate the conflict in Title VII this case pointed out. The City of New Haven had no malice in what it did when it rejected the written test results. The City was trying to comply with Title VII, but compliance with one section resulted in noncompliance with another. At least that seems to be what five of the Supremes are suggesting. This case seems to point out the importance of legislators moving deliberately and cautiously in passing legislation so that (presumably) unintended consequences don’t rear up and bite them. It may also be a good reminder that no matter how carefully written and considered, any legislation is going to be less than perfect.
Comment by Bill — June 29, 2009 @ 11:25 am
“Deliberately and cautiously” would probably assume that the legislators have actually read the bill before voting for it? Makes you wonder about all those reps (from both parties) who voted for the obnoxious cap-n-tax bill.
Comment by Dan — June 29, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Yes, reading the bill would seem to be a pretty good idea. One of the sad things about legislation is that often by the time its effects are known, the legislators who voted on it are long gone and cannot be held accountable. Voting on a bill without reading it and discussing it with staff members is reckless and irresponsible and shows disrespect and disdain for their constituents.
Comment by Bill — June 29, 2009 @ 1:25 pm