Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Reverse discrimination ruling leaves confusion

San Francisco Chronicle
By DAVE COLLINS, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

The Supreme Court ruling in favor of white New Haven firefighters who said they were victims of reverse discrimination will probably leave employers confused, civil rights advocates and labor attorneys say.
The court ruled 5-4 Monday that the white firefighters were denied promotions unfairly because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as a federal appeals court judge.
The majority of justices said the city was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results. The city said it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
While the court upheld that employers still have an obligation under civil rights laws to avoid discrimination in hiring, promoting and compensating workers, the ruling creates confusing standards on how to meet that obligation, said Wade Henderson, president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
"Employers will now face a convoluted minefield when attempting to protect workers from discrimination," Henderson said. "Employers are looking for bright lines ... they're looking for clear directives to help them better understand how they can engage in nondiscriminatory decisions."
The ruling is confusing, Henderson said, because the high court seemed to say that while New Haven officials tried to avoid discrimination, throwing out the test was discriminatory. "It puts employers in a real quandary," he said.
The Obama administration should direct the government's civil rights agencies to offer guidance on the ruling, said Shirley Wilcher, executive director of the American Association for Affirmative Action.
"In the meantime, we're scratching our heads," she said. "We're concerned about the impact on employers who want to comply with the law and do not want to discriminate ... and it's not clear how to do that."

Full Story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/06/29/national/w070244D76.DTL

1 comment:

James said...

There is nothing confusing about it. They threw out the test because they were worried that they would be sued because of the results.

All employers should need to know (Which they should have known already) is that when creating a means of comparison amongst a group of people (in this example, a test) in order to hire/promote, the results are never going to be equal. There will never be 33% whites passed, 33% blacks, 33% hispanics. You should even throw out the part on the test where it asks for race, and just look at the results, and hire/promote the best candidate. Simple.