The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a justice of the United States Supreme Court has brought even more scrutiny to a reverse discrimination case now pending before the United States Supreme Court, Ricci v. Destefano.
At the center of the case is the city of New Haven, Connecticut’s 2003 promotion exam to select firefighters for 15 open captain and lieutenant positions. Out of the 118 candidates who took the exam, 27 of them were African-American.
After the exams were scored, no African-American candidates scored high enough to qualify for consideration for promotion as captain or lieutenant. In response, the City refused to certify the test results and did not promote anyone. The City’s rationale—because of the disparate impact the exam had on African-American firefighters it could be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Seventeen White and two Hispanic firefighters, all of whom would have qualified for consideration for promotion, filed suit alleging racial discrimination.
In the federal district court, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, ruled in favor of the City, granting its motion for summary judgment which precluded the case from going to trial. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling in a summary order, without opinion. The panel later withdrew its summary order and then issued a unanimous per curium opinion.
The per curium opinion characterized the trial court’s decision as “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned” but also stated that there were “no good alternatives in the case.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral arguments in April. Justice Antonin Scalia scoffed at the claim that rejecting the results was racially neutral. The justice who seemed most sympathetic to New Haven’s position was the man that Judge Sotomayor will replace, if confirmed. Justice David Souter stated that New Haven was placed in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation.” The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected in the coming weeks. Transcripts of the oral argument can be found at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-1482.pdf.
This reverse discrimination case is certain to come up at Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings. Judge Sotomayor will likely be asked not only about the substantive ruling, but about the panel’s decision to issue a per curium decision, rather than a lengthy opinion. However, one only has to read Judge Atherton’s district court opinion to know the answer to the question. There was not much more the panel could have added in its opinion that was not already addressed in Judge Atherton’s opinion in the court below.
I encourage readers to review the entire district court decision at http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/public.htm and decide for themselves whether the judges on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals panel were justified in upholding the lower court’s decision and, more importantly, whether the Supreme Court should uphold it.
Related posts:
