The following is a collection of articles on the Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano and its possible effect on local hiring practices.

From The Buffalo News:

BUFFALO, NY – In New Haven, Conn., city officials tossed out the results of a promotional exam for firefighters because no African-Americans and only two Hispanics scored high enough to receive promotions.

In Buffalo, essentially the same thing happened after a promotional exam given in 2002.

So when the U. S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that New Haven officials acted illegally and that white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions, it raised the hopes of 13 white Buffalo firefighters that they will be promoted and get full back pay.

“In New Haven, you had a city that refused to make promotions based on a fear of lawsuits. In Buffalo, you had the same thing,” said Andrew P. Fleming, attorney for the 13 Buffalo firefighters. “We feel that the Supreme Court ruling is going to solidify our arguments against the city. . . . We're pleased.”

But Adam W. Perry, one of the attorneys representing Buffalo in the same case, said the situations in Buffalo and New Haven were much different. He believes that the Supreme Court ruling will bolster the city's case.

“Buffalo's actions were taken in the context of actual pending litigation,” Perry said. “New Haven's actions were taken out of mere concern that lawsuits would be filed.”

It's too soon to know whether the Supreme Court's ruling will have any effect on two local cases — one each in state and federal court — involving firefighter promotions in Buffalo.

White firefighters in the city are likely to be pleased by the ruling, while at least some minority firefighters are likely to be unhappy with it, said Daniel Cunningham, president of Buffalo Professional Firefighters Local 282. He noted that his union represents both groups.

“I do hope the Supreme Court decision gives our city some direction on how to handle these situations,” he said. “But sometimes, our city doesn't go in the right direction.”

Cunningham estimated that at least 70 to 80 firefighters, mostly whites, were passed over for promotions because the city refused to promote people off the 2002 promotional list.

In what many people see as an important ruling on job discrimination, the Supreme Court ruled that New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to receive promotions based on the results, while 17 white firefighters could expect promotions.

Government officials in New Haven said they scrapped the exam results because they feared that minorities would file lawsuits.

That is not a legally acceptable reason for tossing out promotional test results, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision. “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

An employer needs a “strong basis in evidence” to believe it will be held liable in a discrimination lawsuit, and New Haven had no such evidence, he added.

In Buffalo, the two pending lawsuits claim that the city ran exams for Fire Department promotions that discriminated against African-Americans.

The federal suit has been pending before U. S. District Judge John T. Curtin since 1998. A group called Men of Color Helping All (MOCHA) claims the city intentionally discriminated against African-Americans in its 2002 promotional exams. The city denies the allegations.

Curtin ruled in March that the city's 2002 exam did not violate federal civil rights laws. MOCHA appealed that ruling.

MOCHA's attorney, Thomas S. Gill, filed court papers last month claiming city officials “knew the exam had a disparate impact on African-Americans but used it anyway.”

Gill said Monday he does not think the Supreme Court ruling will affect the legal dispute in Buffalo's federal court.

“The Supreme Court decision doesn't really address the issue we're dealing with in Buffalo,” Gill said. “The issue in Buffalo is whether the test that was given really measures whether somebody will be a good fire lieutenant.”

In a lawsuit before State Supreme Court Judge John A. Michalek, 13 firefighters claim the city illegally blocked their promotions by allowing the 2002 promotional list to run out.

“The [U. S.] Supreme Court ruled that fear of lawsuits by minorities does not constitute a legal reason for keeping successful white candidates from getting their promotions,” Fleming said. “We feel that the Supreme Court ruling has eliminated most, if not all, of the rulings that the city has.”

Perry disagreed. He said the city has been under a federal court minority hiring decree since the 1970s and had every legitimate reason to be concerned about lawsuits over the promotions.

Firefighter Thomas Barrett said he is happy about the Supreme Court's ruling, but he figures the high court's decision came about seven years too late to do him any good.

Barrett, 47, is one of more than 70 Buffalo firefighters who lost out on promotions because of the ongoing court battle over allegations that the 2002 promotional exam discriminated against African-Americans.

“I'm thrilled for the firefighters in New Haven. I hope it benefits them and other firefighters in other cities,” Barrett said. “But it's too late to help me.”

Barrett — who is not one of Fleming's clients — scored well on the 2002 test and was in line for a promotion to lieutenant. But the city promoted only a few firefighters from the list and then stopped because of its fears of legal action.

Barrett said he took another promotional test in 2008 and passed it but did not do well enough to become a likely candidate for promotion. “After what happened to me [in 2002], I was very upset,” he said. “When I took the next test, my heart really wasn't in it.”

Theodore Kirkland, a retired Buffalo police officer who fought against discrimination in both the police and fire departments in the 1960s and 1970s, said he was not surprised by the ruling.

“This is a conservative court,” Kirkland said. “To say that not enough blacks did well on a test, that isn't enough. You have to show there was actual cultural bias.”

But minority groups must continue to be on their guard and raise complaints when tests are unfair, said Kirkland, founder of the Buffalo Police African-American Officers Association.

Back To Top

From The Cleveland Plain Dealer:

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Monday on racial discrimination against white firefighters in a Connecticut city led several Northeast Ohio officials to contemplate what impact it could have on personnel issues here.

The case was from New Haven, Conn., where the city gave a promotional exam to firefighters. White firefighters scored disproportionately higher. Fearing the test discriminated against black firefighters - a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - city officials threw out the test results.

The Supreme Court ruled that discriminated against the white firefighters.

Akron and Cleveland also were involved in lawsuits in recent years based on tests in which white firefighters scored disproportionately higher. Both cities promoted firefighters based on the results, leading minority firefighters to sue. They both lost in federal court despite having taken the opposite action as New Haven.

Patricia Rubright, assistant director of law in Akron, said the contrasting decisions initially give the impression of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

She added, however, that Monday's decision does give some insight into interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The court said New Haven intentionally discriminated against the white firefighters in an attempt to rectify the unintentional racial impact of the test.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "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 bias in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable" under Title VII.

Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson's administration did not respond to a request for a comment by late Monday afternoon.

Cleveland Battalion Chief Chester Ashton, president of the Fire Fighters Local 93 union, called the ruling a triumph for all firefighters and a warning to cities.

"We want a test that is fair to everyone," Ashton said. "I think this is more of a heads up to the city. You have to get a good quality tester."

Lt. Terence Watson, president of the Vanguards, an association of Cleveland black firefighters, said that Cleveland needs to look at different models for testing rather than the current ones used that focus on books and paper. He said that regardless of test results, some group will be unhappy. "It's going to end up in court," Watson said.

Back To Top

From The Detroit Free Press:

In a major ruling that could impact workplaces across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of white firefighters who said they were denied promotions in favor of blacks because of their race. The decision might make it harder for cities like Detroit to sustain programs that give preferences to African Americans in favor of whites, legal experts said.

The 5-4 ruling -- in favor of firefighters from New Haven, Conn. -- was hailed by critics of racial preferences as a victory for fairness while others said it was a blow for equality. The court ruled that it was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for New Haven to get rid of a civil service test because African Americans did not perform well enough on it to get promoted.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in writing the majority opinion.

He was joined by Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The court cited several times the case of Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, in which a white teacher from Jackson, Mich., was laid off in 1981 in favor of black teachers in order to maintain diversity. The opinion affirmed the woman's claims of reverse discrimination.

Monday's ruling reversed an earlier decision by U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who had ruled in the case as an appeals court judge in New York. The ruling raised anew the debate over race and the law in the run-up to Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, set for July 13. And it reignited the criticism from conservatives who have slammed Sotomayor for touting her Latina identity as a plus in making legal decisions.

"I think this case reflects the philosophical divide on the court" over affirmative action, said Larry Dubin, professor of law at the University of Detroit-Mercy School of Law. "Whether race should or can be a factor to promote diversity is a very difficult issue to resolve."

The Rev. Horace Sheffield, a civil rights leader with New Galilee Baptist Church in Detroit, said the decision wrongly played to populist sentiments and wasn't grounded in the law.

"It's not surprising because we've had a growing momentum against race-related redress," Sheffield said. "It's amazing that people who have had 300 years of advantage at the expense of the brown and black and red people feel that they're the ones who are being discriminated against."

But others said Monday's ruling in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano was a victory for individual rights.

"It's a solid win for those who are opposed to the use of racial preferences," said Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, a conservative public interest law firm that has been active in Michigan fighting affirmative action programs. "The court tackled a difficult problem and saw clearly the way" that the pulling of the exam was "very unfair to ... the white firefighters."

Pell said the ruling "will affect municipalities all over the country that use hiring tests and promotion tests."

The City of Detroit did not respond to a request for comment on Monday's court's decision. Former Detroit Mayor Coleman Young and other city leaders have promoted affirmative action programs in recent decades -- in its police department and fire training academy, for example -- that some whites said discriminated against them. Last month, four EMS workers who are white filed suit against the city saying they were discriminated against because of their race.

Back To Top

From The Philiadelphia Inquirer:

The City of Philadelphia this year quietly paid out $275,000 to settle claims by five white firefighters that they had been discriminated against in the promotion process.

Not only did the city pay five lieutenants between $30,000 and $40,000 each in the January settlement of a 2007 federal civil-rights lawsuit, but the Fire Department also agreed to address the officers' complaints that the promotional exams they took in 2005 were skewed against them in favor of minority candidates.

The settlement suggests that the city gave some credibility to the officers' claims - including one that the city purposely brought in minority officers to administer the tests.

The settlement was marked "confidential," but the city released it to The Inquirer under the state Right to Know Act.

The settlement allowed the city to avoid a lengthy litigation and appeals process such as the City of New Haven, Conn., experienced in a 2004 lawsuit by 20 white firefighters who challenged their city's promotion process. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in their favor.

The Philadelphia case underscores a similar, ongoing racial tension in the department in regard to promotions and how the tests are given and scored.

Fire Commissioner Lloyd Ayers could not be reached for comment. Everett Gillison, the deputy mayor for public safety, said he was not familiar with details of the lawsuit and would not comment until he had reviewed it.

The Philadelphia lieutenants - Francis J. Hannan, Joseph Lee Jr., Gerard Kots, Michael Wellock, and Thomas G. Leonard - sued the city in September 2007, claiming that they had been "systematically or otherwise downgraded" because of their race during the oral portion of the July 2005 fire captain's examination.

None of the five was promoted at the time - Hannan and Lee made captain in subsequent promotion rounds.

In the suit, the men alleged that the "raters" - fire officers from other cities brought in to administer tests, a practice in most departments - were told before the tests that the department "was 'in dire' need of minority and female fire officers," according to the complaint.

Of the 14 raters brought in for the 2005 captains test, 10 were African American, some of them members of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters, which has advanced the cause of blacks in the firehouses nationally, according to the complaint.

The five white lieutenants lost points for such things as lack of "appropriate eye contact," mistakenly addressing a female rater as "Sir," and for "being too wordy," according to the complaint.

While the city denied in the settlement "that it engaged in any discrimination or retaliation in any manner whatsoever," it agreed to:

Develop written procedures for selecting raters that prohibit an expressed preference for minority raters.

Instruct raters not to consider race or gender and not provide the raters with racial or gender demographics of the department.

Develop guidelines for evaluating communication skills that will be shared with promotion candidates.

Refrain from retaliating against any of the plaintiffs.

The city paid Kots and Leonard $30,000 each; Hannan and Lee $35,000 each; and Wellock $40,000. Their attorneys split a total of $105,000.

Dissent over the testing process - particularly the oral section - is a decades-old problem. The city's promotional process is weighted: 45 percent for a written test, 45 percent for an oral test, and 10 percent for seniority.

At one time, African American firefighters complained that the oral test was a way to keep them from promotions.

Blacks now make up 28 percent of the department, whites 66 percent, and Hispanics 6 percent. Six percent are women.

Today, with a 1985 consent decree in place requiring at least 12 percent of new hires to be African American, and with African Americans in top leadership posts including the commissioner, Ayers, it has been white officers who have railed against the process.

"Commissioner Ayers has systematically demonstrated bias against Caucasian fire fighters and fire officers," attorneys Arthur L. Bugay and Gerald Williams wrote in their complaint for the five officers.

Mayor Nutter's spokesman, Doug Oliver, called that comment "absurd . . . harmful, unfair, and undeserved. Anyone who knows Commissioner Ayers knows that he is a consummate professional and that he executes the responsibilities of his office with integrity."

The controversy over the testing process has produced a sometimes-divided department with groups like Club Valiants Inc., an organization of black firefighters that fought for the consent decree, and the local Concerned American Firefighters Association chapter, which supported the white officers known as the "New Haven 20."

Lt. Kenneth W. Greene Sr., Club Valiants president, said his group had no problem with the promotion-testing system or the role of oral exams.

"I don't see how someone can have a problem trying to explain themselves unless they didn't know what they were talking about," he said. Greene called the 26 percent representation of African Americans in the department "sad."

The International Association of Fire Fighters Local 22, which represents the city's 2,100-plus firefighters, last year asked the city to eliminate the oral portion of the promotional exams.

Bill Gault, who takes over as president of Local 22 today from outgoing president Brian McBride, said yesterday: "There's never going to be people happy with the oral. It's way too subjective."

The city refused to do away with the oral exam, asserting its prerogative to manage the tests as it sees fit.

During arbitration this year, Local 22 proposed that the tests be scored on 50 percent written, 25 percent oral, and 25 percent seniority, said union attorney Rick Poulson.

"We'd like to have some processes in place that allow us to avoid the infighting and find the most qualified candidates to do this important work," Poulson said yesterday. "Every time there's a list that comes out, there's a lawsuit."

The New Haven case, in which that city threw out the results of a 2003 written test when it produced no minority candidates, might cause cities to rely even more on oral exams, said attorney Bugay.

"Cities may try to make examinations entirely oral, and that would be problematic," he said. "Because the written part of the exam is actually the most objective part of the promotional exam process, by definition."

The Supreme Court case may discourage cities "from administering their own ad hoc affirmative-action policies that harm the civil rights of others," Bugay said.

Union lawyer Poulson said New Haven "gives us an excuse to reexamine a promotional process that is broken."