# The New Haven Firefighter Case **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268 "2009-05-31T16:52:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/201 "2009-06-30T04:14:01Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Well, your preemption says more than any critics ever could. It would be interesting to see if the GOP has the balls to grill the Wise Latina Woman on an issue when she is clearly holds a minority opinion to the rest of the country, but I doubt they will. It would look bad. But maybe they’ll call Mayor DeStefano as a witness to beat up on him over the injustice he personally did to Frank Ricci, an injustice upheld, fortunately only temporarily, by Judge Sotomayor. If they are too sensitive to ask tough questions of the Wise Latina, they can ask them of the not so wise white guy. Actually, while I note that you have jumped on the bandwagon, already, I think that the poor reporting and the assumptions you have made while agreeing with the poor reporting are premature. (From the linked article: > [@](#): > > High court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor heard the case on her federal appeals court last year and sided with the city. In fact, it was my understanding that Sotomayor did not “hear the case,” but voted with the majority of the appellate court that the case could not be heard at the appellate level on procedural grounds. Whether the Supreme Court’s hearing of the case is an overturning of the Appellate Court’s decision or whether the Supreme Court heard the case on a different basis of appeal, I do not yet know. However, in neither case is it valid to complain that Sotomayor ruled poorly on the case presented by the firefighters because their case was never pled in the appellate court. The ruling with which she consented was regarding the procedural issue for the court to hear the case. (She might well agree with New Haven against the firefighters and in contrast to the SCOTUS majority, but she has no official statement to that effect.) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/202 "2009-06-30T05:26:37Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > In fact, it was my understanding that Sotomayor did not “hear the case,” but voted with the majority of the appellate court that the case could not be heard at the appellate level on procedural grounds. The case was heard by a 2nd circuit three judge panel, which included Sotomayor, which affirmed the district court’s ruling with a summary judgment. Then the panel withdrew the summary judgment, and issued a per curium opinion. The 2nd circuit then decided by 7-6, not to hear the case en banc. Then it was appealed to the SC. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 8:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/203 "2009-06-30T08:33:55Z")
The two pleas to the Appellate Court: were they lodged on a claim of wrong decision, or appeals regarding procedural errors? ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/204 "2009-06-30T11:10:26Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Does that (low chance of flunking out of med school) show that that everyone’s equally qualified, or does it show that after the initial race-normed screen there’s very little else that you can use to separate the wheat from the chaff? Medical school candidates are nowhere near equally qualified, nor do they perform equally. They do not achieve equivalent successes in qualifying for and completing the more demanding residencies or passing terminal exams for highly specialized sub-specialty certifications. They are not equally regarded by colleagues in terms of decision-making and practical day to day care of patients. It is, nevertheless, difficult to actually quantify (beyond written examinations) physician competence. I used to joke that the best benefit of being a physician is knowing who the good doctors really are. From an AA standpoint, it’s similar to the problem one might have evaluating NBA players. It’s pretty obvious that blacks–as a group–have demonstrated superior performance and–as a group–are over-represented. It would be nevertheless difficult to take any given top-level white player and pinpoint precisely why he’s not as good on any given play. It would be difficult to take two all-white teams composed of top players and in isolation observe them playing against each other and come to the conclusion that they were inferior to a couple of all-black teams playing each other. You would see group differences if you broke down basketball into component tests for things like acceleration, jumping height, dunking from a distance, or similar efforts to actually standardize and test what makes a good player. Sort of the equivalent of a standardized exam for basketball ability. And you could take any given top white player and argue that he is a superb and competent basketball player. That doesn’t make him equally qualified to all other players. Medicine is a little soft like that. It’s very difficult to prove a given individual is less qualified–less good–for something with so many variables. As a practical matter medical schools make an assumption that all who are accepted into medical school have a potential to be competent physicians, and generally take great pains to nurture through those with weaker academic abilities. Additional filtering occurs at the specialty and sub-specialty training levels during the process for acceptance into residency programs. There again the same difficult decisions occur about deciding who is qualified, because the race-based score differentials on the standardized exams administered at the end of med-school do not disappear simply because the two cohorts have have had the exact same educational training. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/205 "2009-06-30T11:11:24Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > The two pleas to the Appellate Court: were they lodged on a claim of wrong decision, or appeals regarding procedural errors? The firefighters appealed the decision of the district court, which found in favor of the city on substantive grounds. The district court issued summary judgment in favor of the city. This essentially means that it decided that no set of facts existed that would enable the firefighters to win their case, because, in its view, the city’s decision was based upon a legitimate, non-discriminatory consideration (the fear of litigation from black firefighters). The appellate panel adopted that opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/206 "2009-06-30T13:12:19Z")
When people in this case talk about “fear of litigation,” do they mean “fear of losing a lawsuit” or “fear of going through a lawsuit”? ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/207 "2009-06-30T13:20:56Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Wait for them to come to their senses, I guess. > Looks like it will have to be another time, though. Since their “senses” are not based upon a rather muddled and silly notion, backed by superstition and not facts, maybe that’s a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/208 "2009-06-30T15:11:34Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > But you are ignoring the fact that your phrasing accepts many things as predicates that have simply not been proven. You need to demonstrate that those test scores actual translate to competence and ability in the operating room, or in practice. > > Without doing that, your scenario is as logical as saying, who do you want operating on you, the doctor who cheats on his wife, or the one who is faithful? Do you want the one who is a scratch golfer, or the guy who got a crazy handicap? The MCATs are not exactly meaningless tests, they do measure something. You are just saying that it doesn’t measure enough and it certainly doesn’t measure everything. But if you had a choice between a surgeon who was a great piano player or a surgeon that had a lot of typos, you would probably pickj the surgeon who could play piano. The piano playing surgeon may have had the benefit of a lot of environmental factors growing up that allowed them to become great piano players but I’d probably still pick that guy. The MCATS on the other hand are probably trivial enough that I would probably make my decision based on how cute the receptionists are before MCAT scores (assuming a US medical education). ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/209 "2009-06-30T15:14:10Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Whether the Supreme Court’s hearing of the case is an overturning of the Appellate Court’s decision or whether the Supreme Court heard the case on a different basis of appeal, I do not yet know. However, in neither case is it valid to complain that Sotomayor ruled poorly on the case presented by the firefighters because their case was never pled in the appellate court. The ruling with which she consented was regarding the procedural issue for the court to hear the case. (She might well agree with New Haven against the firefighters and in contrast to the SCOTUS majority, but she has no official statement to that effect.) Yes, it is valid to say that she ruled poorly based on the dissenting opinion in the case. It should have been reviewed in the broader sense because of the blatant nature of the discrimination involved. You could make the case that she deliberately ruled in this manner because of her earlier promotion of a similar Title VII lawsuit. Her actions indicate that she believes it’s OK to discriminate if it advances a minority. To review the case against basic discrimination laws would be a challenge of Title VII. Based on her statements about white judges and her promotion of Title VII as an activist lawyer I don’t see how she can pass judgement in an unbiased manner. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/210 "2009-06-30T15:18:53Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > It is a valid retort when such treatment has been demonstrably proven to have an effect on test those results (as it has). Noticeably absent was any evidence that these inferior test takes become inferior practitioners. So this ambient latent background racism subtly affect all blacks to the point that as a group they test one standard deviation below whites but it has not had any effect whatsoever on other things (like their ability to diagnose). Why does this ambient latent background racism only only seem to affect standardized test results? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/211 "2009-06-30T15:30:56Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So this ambient latent background racism subtly affect all blacks to the point that as a group they test one standard deviation below whites but it has not had any effect whatsoever on other things (like their ability to diagnose). Why does this ambient latent background racism only only seem to affect standardized test results? It might affect other things. But in any case, if a test doesn’t actually reflect their ability to do the job, then it’s a bad test anyway. And if it fails to test for ability, and also gives differential results according to race, then it’s a bad test in more ways than one. It’s not implausible, by the way, that pervasive discrimination against minorities when it comes to education would lead to their being especially “handicapped” (so to speak) when it comes to standardized testing. For a lot of what happens in education is nothing other than learning how to take standardized tests. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/212 "2009-06-30T15:31:11Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > But you are ignoring the fact that your phrasing accepts many things as predicates that have simply not been proven. You need to demonstrate that those test scores actual translate to competence and ability in the operating room, or in practice. Doesn’t much of your position rely on the presumption that race can have effects on all sorts of physical traits like height, weight, metabolism, etc but does not have an effect on intelligence? When every objective test we have shows a HUGE gap between black and white, why do we go through these mental gymnastics to try to identify some reason why those clear test results are in fact totally invalid. Why can’t we say that there may be a difference but they are magnified by some latent racism. We have had twin studies that show the effect of nature versus nurture. Identical twins raised in a country club environment versus a trailer park environment had remarkably similar IQ scores at every stage of their development. You are basically telling us that the difference btween the country club and trailer park is not big enough to make a difference but the difference between being a rich black kid and a rich white kid (or a poor lack kid versus a poor white kid) is enough to create a standard deviation’s worth of difference in IQ. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/213 "2009-06-30T15:43:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Doesn’t much of your position rely on the presumption that race can have effects on all sorts of physical traits like height, weight, metabolism, etc but does not have an effect on intelligence? When every objective test we have shows a HUGE gap between black and white, why do we go through these mental gymnastics to try to identify some reason why those clear test results are in fact totally invalid. Why can’t we say that there may be a difference but they are magnified by some latent racism. > > We have had twin studies that show the effect of nature versus nurture. Identical twins raised in a country club environment versus a trailer park environment had remarkably similar IQ scores at every stage of their development. You are basically telling us that the difference btween the country club and trailer park is not big enough to make a difference but the difference between being a rich black kid and a rich white kid (or a poor lack kid versus a poor white kid) is enough to create a standard deviation’s worth of difference in IQ. Suppose race correlates with IQ. That has nothing to do with the question being discussed in this thread. Even if black people in general tend to have lower IQs than white people in general, it is still (indeed, it is especially) the case that if you give IQ tests to prospective construction workers as a condition of hiring\*, you’d be engaging in a discriminatory practice. Because the skills needed to succeed on an IQ test are not the same skills needed to do well on the construction yard. If black people tended to be weaker than white people, and a construction company required for certain positions a strength test, that would _not_ be a discriminatory practice–even though it would favor white people in that case–because in fact you need a certain minimum amount of strength to work in construction. (I assume.) \*Don’t start people. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/214 "2009-06-30T15:53:56Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Yes, it is valid to say that she ruled poorly based on the dissenting opinion in the case. It should have been reviewed in the broader sense because of the blatant nature of the discrimination involved. > > You could make the case that she deliberately ruled in this manner because of her earlier promotion of a similar Title VII lawsuit. Her actions indicate that she believes it’s OK to discriminate if it advances a minority. To review the case against basic discrimination laws would be a challenge of Title VII. > > Based on her statements about white judges and her promotion of Title VII as an activist lawyer I don’t see how she can pass judgement in an unbiased manner. The fact that the two Republican appoinmted judges on the appellate court agreed with hter or the fact that four justices on the SC agreed with the Appellate court pretty much belies the notion that her decision was racially motivated. however, if you wish to keep projecting your biases on this woman, please fell free. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/215 "2009-06-30T15:56:19Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Yes, it is valid to say that she ruled poorly based on the dissenting opinion in the case. Yes, you argued that position, at length, in another thread. It is certainly your belief. You failed to persuade me, based on the input of the lawyers in that thread who were pointing out the issues of Law, (the area in which the Apellate Court acts, as opposed to the purported arena of Justice, the arena in which the SCOTUS acts, when it has the whim). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/216 "2009-06-30T16:09:32Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Yes, it is valid to say that she ruled poorly based on the dissenting opinion in the case. It should have been reviewed in the broader sense because of the blatant nature of the discrimination involved. > > You could make the case that she deliberately ruled in this manner because of her earlier promotion of a similar Title VII lawsuit. Her actions indicate that she believes it’s OK to discriminate if it advances a minority. To review the case against basic discrimination laws would be a challenge of Title VII. > > Based on her statements about white judges and her promotion of Title VII as an activist lawyer I don’t see how she can pass judgement in an unbiased manner. I don’t agree. Having read the Supreme Court’s opinion, which laid out some facts that I wasn’t preciously aware of, I’m prepared to say their decision is solidly defensible. But it’s a close question. The City took the action it did to avoid being liable under Title VII. It’s ironic that they end up being potentially liable under Title VII anyway. The appeals court decided that the city couldn’t be sued because they didn’t try to discriminate: they acted to avoid being sued for discrimination. The Supreme Court says: with this factual background, there’s very little chance you would have lost your suit if you had gone the other way… so you should have not chosen the way you did. Frankly, the city was in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t vise. The next city, at least, has clearer guidance to navigate these waters. But I think it’s incorrect to read this as some massive repudiation of the appellate court decision. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/217 "2009-06-30T16:52:18Z")
> [@athelas](#): > > Does that show that that everyone’s equally qualified, or does it show that after the initial race-normed screen there’s very little else that you can use to separate the wheat from the chaff? Not really sure what you mean. I guess if you think the MCAT is in fact a useful measure of innate medical talent then I guess you make a very good point but medicine is one of those areas where I would rather have an experienced practitioner who has great training than one who has an extra 10 or 20 or even 30 IQ points. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/218 "2009-06-30T16:55:15Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > If we continue affirmative action I think it should be based on income, whether your parents attended college, if you grew up in a disadvantaged neighborhood, etc. The effect would be the same, but you wouldn’t be pitting races against each other. For all we know, some of the white fire fighters that passed the test and were denied promotion might have faced hurdles in their life equivalent to some of the minority candidates. I think you make a good point and a lot of people agree with you that income should be another factor taken into account (and I believe many school do take this into account). In the firefighter case, tehre were several black candidates that “passed” the tests (they did so at about half the rate as white firefighters), they just never scored in the top 3 so they couldn’t be considered. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/219 "2009-06-30T17:33:43Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > IIn the firefighter case, tehre were several black candidates that “passed” the tests (they did so at about half the rate as white firefighters), they just never scored in the top 3 so they couldn’t be considered. I did not know that, thanks. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268/220 "2009-06-30T17:50:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree. > > Having read the Supreme Court’s opinion, which laid out some facts that I wasn’t preciously aware of, I’m prepared to say their decision is solidly defensible. But it’s a close question. The City took the action it did to avoid being liable under Title VII. It’s ironic that they end up being potentially liable under Title VII anyway. The appeals court decided that the city couldn’t be sued because they didn’t try to discriminate: they acted to avoid being sued for discrimination. > > The Supreme Court says: with this factual background, there’s very little chance you would have lost your suit if you had gone the other way… so you should have not chosen the way you did. > > Frankly, the city was in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t vise. The next city, at least, has clearer guidance to navigate these waters. > > But I think it’s incorrect to read this as some massive repudiation of the appellate court decision. Indeed, early criticism of the decision appears to stem from the fact that attorneys who practice in the area feel that there is now no good guideline for knowing what to do in a case like the city of New Haven faced. I think it would be incredibly ironic if the city is forced now to use the test results to establish a promotion list, and is promptly sued by the “black” candidates under Title VII for engaging in discriminatory practices. Despite the bland assurances of Justice Kennedy, it’s not so clear that such a suit would fail. Love to have that land on his doorstep… 😛 ETA: And anytime the position you advocated is supported by a minority opinion of 4 justices on the SC, I think that you can take it as a good position that just didn’t happen to win. Judge Sotomayor’s only failing, then is in not agreeing with Justice Kennedy. :eek: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-haven-firefighter-case/498268.md?page=12)