WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.
New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no blacks and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
The ruling could give Sotomayor's critics fresh ammunition two weeks before her Senate confirmation hearing. Conservatives say it shows she is a judicial activist who lets her own feelings color her decisions. On the other hand, liberal allies say her stance in the case demonstrates her restraint and unwillingness to go beyond established precedents.
Coincidentally, the court may have given a boost to calls for quick action on her nomination.
The court said it will return Sept. 9 to hear a second round of arguments in a campaign finance case, and with Justice David Souter retiring there would be only eight justices unless Sotomayor has been confirmed by then.
In Monday's ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "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." He was joined in the majority by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."
Justices Souter, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday. Speaking dismissively of the majority opinion, she predicted the court's ruling "will not have staying power."
Kennedy's opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Sotomayor should not be criticized for the unsigned appeals court decision, which he asserted she did not write. "Judge Sotomayor and the lower court panel did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent," said the Vermont Democrat who will preside over Sotomayor's confirmation hearings next month.
In New Haven, Nancy Ricci, whose son, Frank, was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit, carried a large cake decorated with red, white and blue frosting into the law office where the firefighters were celebrating their victory.
The ruling is a sign that individual achievement should not take a back seat to race or ethnicity," said Karen Torre, the firefighters' attorney. "I think the import of the decision is that cities cannot bow to politics and pressure and lobbying by special interest groups or act to achieve racial quotas."
At a press conference in New Haven, firefighter Frank Ricci said the ruling showed that "if you work hard, you can succeed in America."
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
JAFO says...
nominating a federal judge for a seat on the supreme court that has a history of going against established precedents is not only a bold political manuver, it is flat dumb. established precedents are based on constitutional law, and allowing this flea circus to continue to confirmation hearings is wrong. our illustrious fool president should recognize the signifigance of this ruling and withdraw her as a nominee, or she should pull herself out. this judge has been quoted as "misrepresenting" her true stance on legal matters too many times not to raise some red flags.
June 30, 2009 at 12:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lbc says...
It is quite clear Sotomayor's oft repeated committment to "empathy" is clear evidence that she chooses to rule from the bench. This is not why we have a constitution.
June 30, 2009 at 6:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sunny13 says...
Glad to hear the appeal was won by the firefighters. They worked hard, studied hard, and successfully passed their promotion tests and deserved the promotions they were vying for - regardless of their race. While this won't get them their promotions, it certainly has caused a stir and brought some light to the uphill battles all employees face - not just the black and hispanic americans.
June 30, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
teacherlady says...
The real irony here is that JAFO and the other conservative's who make this accusation are accusing Sotomayor of exactly what she didn't do.
In that ruling, which again was first made by a district judge and was unanimously upheld by the three-judge panel that included Sotomayor, Sotomayor and the other judges based their rulings on precedent. They followed the law even if they didn't necessarily like it--they expressed their sympathy for the firefighters--and they left it up to the Supreme Court to change the existing policy if it needed to be changed.
That is exactly how the system is supposed to work and exactly how a responsible judge is supposed to operate. You may also notice, if you bother to read the desisions that the Supreme Court was very divided on this issue and that they did not in any way put down Sotomayor or the earlier decisions.
And, Ibc, she has no history of "ruling from the bench." Give me an example--one single example of when she has done that? Give me some evidence that she's biased toward women or minorities. Give me one example of when she's been activist. Rather than just repeating the conservative talking points, how about you try some facts for a change?
And finally, it seems strange to me that conservatives can refer to empathy over and over and over again as a bad thing while at the same time urging us to have empathy and patience for Ensign and Sandford. You can't have it both ways.
June 30, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JAFO says...
teacherlady, the conclusions i have come to come from years of dealing with legalities every day. when you have a person that comes across and says that a latino woman will make a better decision than a white male, due to life experience, we have a problem. what if that statment was made by a white male, and the circumstances were reversed? that white male would be labeled a racist. she is a racist. and racists do not belong in places of authority. think about it what would people think if david duke would win a seat on the supreme court? there would be outrage, and rightly so. he is a racist. the only thing i am concerned with, and so should you, is personal freedoms. it is with absolute certainty that liberal judges find on the side of the government, and go against the common good. liberals like you and the rest of the nazi's only care about tolerance when it is not in conflict of liberal dogma. wake up and smell what you're shoveling.
June 30, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
megafrog says...
Seems like our liberal friend seems to think that racism is ok. Racism, of any sorts, is wrong. Sotamayor is a pro affirmative action candidate thus is a pro racism candidate. Though this case was not about affirmative action per se, it is definitely about discrimination. Good for the firefighters winning and may we be spared from ms Latina Goddess hitting the Supreme Court bench!
June 30, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lbc says...
Teacherlady, I'm just relying on what Sotomayor said repeatedly.....she stated on numerous occasions that latino women make better decisions than white males....how clear can she be. Her decision in the firefighter's case was clearly to uphold the principles affirmative action. You can dance around it all you choose. Bottom line is the bottom line.
She choose to conclude discrimination (racism) is "OK" if it serves the purpose she pursues.
One single example where she favors a minority....well, howabout the firefighters case. hummmmm, yep, that's pretty clear evidence. There's a fact....AGAIN.
By the way, PLEASE don't show empathy or patience with Ensign or Stanford......just treat them like Chris Dodd...or Tim Geithner....or Barney Frank.....or Rep Jefferson.....or Tom Dashel.....or Kathlean Sebelius....or, well, you get the point.
June 30, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )