Ricci Decision a Phyrric Victory
by TJ Wihera | 11:43 am, June 29, 2009 | 1 Comment
In its decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court sided with Firefighters in New Haven who were discriminated against because they were white.
As Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion:
We conclude that race-based action like the City’s in this case is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute.
[Emphasis mine.]
Note that the court’s decision didn’t actually say that the specific practice of discriminating based on race is illegal – it simply said that the way the city of New Haven did it wasn’t the right way in which to do it.
This means that, ultimately, the Court ruled that it’s quite fine for a hiring body to discriminate against one group in favor of another in order to avoid a “disparate-impact” to a minority group. As a consequence, hiring is as much as game of racial politics as ever, rather than a process in which employers seek out the best qualified applicants.
Comments
Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"
- "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow
Featured Posts
- Printing Money Doesn’t Work in Britain Either
Of course not! Why would anyone conclude that errors are geographical? Errors are errors and attempts to reinflate the British economy using the same hot air compressors that we use here aren’t going to work any better over there than they have here.
- Oklahoma’s Constitutional Amendment Would Pit Taxpayers Against Unions
- Friday’s Unemployment Numbers: Correcting the Corrections
- Romney Woos Grand Junction, Earns Sen. King’s Endorsement
- The Borking of Netflix: movie service finds privacy law to be an inconvenience
- Rich Americans Are Fleeing the Country
- ObamaCare Advisers Predict Death of Health Insurance Companies





June 29th, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
The majority opinion indeed acted to narrow, not completely eliminate, the “disparate impact” provisions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Still, it’s a step in the right direction.
Also, read Justice Antonin Scalia’s concurring opinion, which more directly addressed the issue of the constitutionality of “disparate impact:”
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion in full, but write separately to observe that its resolution of this dispute merely post-pones 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?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf