Yuku free message boards

OOF wrote:

---

ToddZilla6 wrote:

---

Quotas had nothing to do with the case or the decision which spawned it.

The city tossed the results because it feared that it would be sued successfully by blacks and/or Latinos on the grounds that the test somehow violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("disparate impact"). Judge Sotomayor had ruled that the city was justified in doing so on those grounds. The SCOTUS ruled that the city didn't present sufficient evidence that the test was in violation of Title VII and shouldn't have tossed the results on such grounds. The city was between a rock and a hard place with regard to Title VII, as there's no clear distinction as to what actually defines the "disparate impact" that they sought to avoid by tossing the results in the first place.

Where does this "quotas" nonsense come from, by the way?

The legal mumbo jumbo may not say anything about 'a quota' but you can bet that the decision about throwing out those tests included as a major factor 'a quota'.
Are you familiar with Ward Connerly?

nkfro wrote:

---

ToddZilla6 wrote:

---

Quotas had nothing to do with the case or the decision which spawned it.

The city tossed the results because it feared that it would be sued successfully by blacks and/or Latinos on the grounds that the test somehow violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("disparate impact"). Judge Sotomayor had ruled that the city was justified in doing so on those grounds. The SCOTUS ruled that the city didn't present sufficient evidence that the test was in violation of Title VII and shouldn't have tossed the results on such grounds. The city was between a rock and a hard place with regard to Title VII, as there's no clear distinction as to what actually defines the "disparate impact" that they sought to avoid by tossing the results in the first place.

Where does this "quotas" nonsense come from, by the way?

As quoted from the original article:

"Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said New Haven had violated the landmark Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1991. The city had no good reason to throw out the test results, he said, even if it was threatened by lawsuits by the black firefighters. It's decision to do so, he wrote, amounted to a "de facto quota system," where it was making decisions based on "raw racial statistics."

nkfro wrote:

---

ToddZilla6 wrote:

---

Whoever wrote that paragraph above should be shot. Justice Kennedy did not write that the actions of the city "amounted to a 'de facto quota system'." And he used the wrong form of 'its,' too.

When he wrote the "de facto" statement, he was referring hypothetically to the consequences of assuming a "minimal standard" that would justify actions similar to those taken by the city.

I went to the Supreme Court of the United States to read the ruling or, at a minimum, a digest of the decision but could not find either. Is there a website that presents the opinions of the individual Justices?

Allowing employers to violate the disparate-treatment prohibition based on a mere good-faith fear of disparate-impact liability would encourage race-based action at the slightest hint of disparate impact. A minimal standard could cause employers to discard the results of lawful and beneficial promotional examinations even where there is little if any evidence of disparate-impact discrimination. That would amount to a de facto quota system, in which a "focus on statistics . . . could put undue pressure on employers to adopt inappropriate prophylactic measures." Watson, 487 U. S., at 992 (plurality opinion).

Even worse, an employer could discard test results (or other employment practices)with the intent of obtaining the employer's preferred racial balance. That operational principle could not be justified,for Title VII is express in disclaiming any interpretation ofits requirements as calling for outright racial balancing. §2000e-2(j). The purpose of Title VII "is to promote hiring on the basis of job qualifications, rather than on the basis of race or color." Griggs, 401 U. S., at 434.