Supreme Court Ruling Affects 1964 Civil Rights Act

New Haven firemen who are plaintiffs in the Ricci v. DeStefano lawsuit celebrate the Supreme Court's decision in their favor. Their attorney (center) gets an honorary firefighter's cap. At far right is Ricci. (Melissa Bailey, NewHavenIndependent.org)

The following article is from NewHavenIndependent.org. 

New Haven’s moment in the US Supreme Court spotlight may be just the start of a turning back of civil rights law aimed at advancing blacks and Hispanics in the workplace.

That’s what one Pulitzer Prize-winning court-watcher, Linda Greenhouse, concludes from a sentence on Page 25 of the majority opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano, the case in which a 5-4 majority ruled Monday that New Haven can’t ignore the results of a fire department promotional exam just because no African-Americans scored high enough. (Read about that here.)

At the heart of the case was Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. New Haven had argued that it needed to set aside the results of the test because it would otherwise face a lawsuit from black firefighters under Title VII — based on the fact that it had a “disparate impact.”

US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that that’s not good enough: An employer can’t throw out a test’s results just because of who did or didn’t pass. It has to demonstrate a “strong basis in evidence” that the test itself was flawed.

That constitutes a big change. Until now, U.S. courts have interpreted Title VII to mean that the results alone were enough to reconsider the test.

But Kennedy’s opinion did not scuttle Title VII itself, or oppose the idea that employers could make affirmative efforts to avoid racial discrimination before the test’s results.

Justice Antonin Scalia wanted to go further in the Ricci ruling.

He wrote, in a concurring opinion, that the majority opinion merely “postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?”

Scalia suggested that the two notions — avoiding a racially “disparate” result on a test, and protecting people’s rights — are at odds.

Kennedy’s majority opinion stated that this case didn’t need to address that question.

Yale law professor Drew Days, a former solicitor general under President Clinton, said from his reading of the various opinions issued Monday, that the rest of the Supreme Court, Scalia’s conservative faction, isn’t ready to follow along Scalia’s path. (Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in a dissenting opinion that no such inherent contradition exists between the two notions.)

Linda Greenhouse, who’s also on the Yale Law School faculty, took a different view of the political dynamics revealed Monday (June 29, 2009).

Greenhouse, who won a Pulitzer Prize during a 30-year stint covering the Supreme Court for The New York Times, pointed to Page 25 of Kennedy’s ruling.

“We also do not hold that meeting the strong-basis-in-evidence standard would satisfy the Equal Protection Clause in a future case,” Kennedy wrote.

To Greenhouse, that line is a “warning flare” that a broader revisiting of Title VII may be forthcoming.

She offered a theory for how that line ended up in the opinion: Scalia wanted the majority opinion to tackle the broader issue. When that wasn’t in the cards, he agreed to sign the majority opinion only if it at least “teed up the constitutional issue.”

New Haven Mayor John DeStefano Monday took a similar view to Greenhouse’s.

At a jam-packed City Hall press conference, DeStefano portrayed the Ricci as step one is a larger turning-back of civil rights law. More than once DeStefano, too, mentioned Scalia’s opinion and the justice’s “clear intention” to move beyond Title VII in the case. He called the Ricci decision the latest example of a “continued erosion of civil rights law by the Supreme Court.”

DeStefano said he disagrees with the court’s direction. America still needs “robust civil rights laws” to “live up to a just and civil society,” the mayor said.

Past New Haven Indpendent stories on fire department promotions and the Ricci case:• Supreme Court Overturns City On Ricci• Minority Firefighters Vow Post-Ricci Unity• Ricci Ruling Won’t End Quest• Ricci, Sotomayor Brand DeStefano• Firefighter Case Reveals Surprise Obama Stand• Justices Zero In On Race-Based Distinctions• Rights Groups Back Black Firefighters• The Supreme Stakes: Title VII’s Future• Dobbs v. Bolden• Latino Group Backs White Firefighters• Black Firefighters: Ricci Case Poses Grave Threat• NAACP Backs City In Firefighter Case• Paging Justice Kennedy• Fire Inspectors Promoted• Fire Inspector List Approved• U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Firefighters’ Case• Fire Promotions Examined in Supreme Court

Source:  NewHavenIndependent.org Click here to read New Haven Mayor John DeStefanos's statement on the Supreme Court's decision yesterday on the Ricci v. DeStefano lawsuit.

Copyright 2009 New England Ethnic Newswire, EthnicNEWz.org.  All rights reserved.  This material may not be republished, rewritten, broadcast or distributed without the permission of the source.  Inquire or send press releases to NEWz at EthnicNews (at) yahoo (dot) com.

Follow EthnicNEWz.org on Twitter at Twitter.com/EthnicNEWZorg.

EVENTS IN NEW ENGLAND:Registered NEWz users can self-post their events on the NEWz Calendar, at EthnicNEWZ.org/en/event.  

NEW ENGLANDERS:  Want to submit a commentary about something important in your local ethnic community?  Contact EthnicNews (at) yahoo (dot) com with a description of your proposed commentary.

NEW ENGLAND ETHNIC NEWSWIRE WELCOMES YOUR VIEWS.Post your comments below.  Please stay on topic with your comments and links.