NEW HAVEN MAYOR'S Statement on Supreme Court Decision

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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NEW HAVEN MAYOR JOHN DESTEFANO JR.'S STATEMENT ON SUPREME COURT DECISION IN RICCI v. DESTEFANO CASE

NEW HAVE FIREFIGHTERS

●    AT THE OUTSET I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT OVER THE LAST 5YEARS THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND DISAGREEMENT REGARDING THEPROMOTIONAL EXAMS FOR FIRE CAPTAIN AND LIEUTENANT.

●    FOR ALL OF THAT, I WISH TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF NEW HAVENFIREFIGHTERS WHO HAVE NEVER, NEVER ALLOWED THIS DEBATE TO AFFECT THEIRPERFORMANCE ON THE FIRE GROUND, OR, WITH ONE ANOTHER.

●    THEIR SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF NEW HAVEN AND TO THEIR UNITS HASBEEN, AND REMAINS, EXEMPLARY.

THE EXAM

●    IN 2004 THE CITY ADMINISTERED CIVIL SERVICE EXAMS FOR THEPOSITIONS OF LIEUTENANT AND CAPTAIN.  THERE WERE 15 VACANCIES.

●    THE EXAM YIELDED NINETEEN POSSIBLE CANDIDATES FOR PROMOTION –NONE OF WHOM WERE AFRICAN AMERICAN.

●    IN EVALUATING THE TEST RESULTS PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE CIVILSERVICE COMMISSION WHICH MAKES THE DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER TOCERTIFY THE RESULTS, THE CITY WAS AWARE OF TWO FACTS:(i)    THE CITY’S EXPERIENCE WITH 40 YEARS OF LITIGATION SURROUNDINGFIRE PROMOTIONAL EXAMS.  LAWSUITS SUCCESSFULLY BROUGHT ON BEHALF OFAFRICAN AMERICAN AND HISPANIC FIREFIGHTERS CHALLENGING PROMOTIONAL EXAMSIN THE 1970’S, THE 1980’S AND THE 1990’S; AND(ii)    THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND 1991. 

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1964 AND 1991

●    REGARDING THE LAW, THE CITY’S FOCUS WAS ON TITLE VII OF THEACT.  TITLE VII ENSURES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE:REGARDLESS OF RACE, GENDER, ETHNICITY AND RELIGION.

●    FURTHER, TITLE VII PROTECTS AGAINST “NOT ONLY OVERTDISCRIMINATION, BUT ALSO PRACTICES THAT ARE FAIR IN FORM, BUTDISCRIMINATORY IN OPERATION”.  I’LL SAY THAT AGAIN – FAIR IN FORM,BUT DISCRIMINATORY IN OPERATION.

●    TO PROTECT AGAINST SUCH PRACTICES THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITEDSTATES HAS LEGISLATED AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY RULED THATEMPLOYMENT PRACTICES THAT HAVE SUCH A ‘DISPARATE IMPACT’ VIOLATETITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

●    THIS HAS BEEN THE STANDARD CREATED AND SUSTAINED BY AN ACT OFCONGRESS; BY 8 OUT OF 8 FEDERAL JUDGES IN 4 DIFFERENT COURTS; BY 38YEARS OF SETTLED LAW; AND SIGNED OFF BY 2 DIFFERENT REPUBLICANPRESIDENTS – NIXON WHOSE EEOC PIONEERED THE DISPARATE IMPACT DOCTRINEFOR TITLE VII BEGINNING IN 1970; AND, GEORGE H.W. BUSH WHO SIGNED THECIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1991.

TODAY’S DECISION

●    AND THAT WAS THE STANDARD UNTIL TODAY WHEN A NEW SET OF RULESWAS INTRODUCED BY A 5-4 DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

●    THAT SAID, THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT BOUND BY PRECEDENT AND ITSINTERPRETATIONS OF ANTIDISCRIMINATION LAW HAVE FOR SOME TIME BEENSHOWING INCREASING DISTANCE FROM REASONABLE AND TIME TESTED EFFORTS INTHE PURSUIT OF REMEDYING DISCRIMINATION.

●    AND ALTHOUGH THE CITY AND THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE CIRCUITCOURT THAT UPHELD THE CITY’S ACTION DID NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TOANTICIPATE THE SUPREME COURTS NEW LEGAL STANDARD – WE CLEARLY HAVE THEOBLIGATION TO FOLLOW IT.  AND WE SHALL.

THE DECISION●    TODAY THERE IS A NATURAL TENDENCY TO COUNT WINNERS AND LOSERS.

●    AND AT THIS MOMENT I MUST ADMIT THAT I WELL RECALL JUSTICESOUTER’S COMMENT FROM THE ORAL ARGUMENT THAT THE CITY FOUND ITSELF INA “DAMNED IF YOU DO, DAMNED IF YOU DON’T SITUATION”.

●    I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS  WHO BROUGHT THE LAWSUITGENUINELY FELT THAT THEY HAD PLAYED BY THE RULES, THAT THEY HAD DONENOTHING WRONG, AND THAT THEY WERE EGREGIOUSLY WRONGED.

●    I ALSO HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THERE IS ANOTHER GROUP OF FIREFIGHTERSTODAY WHO FEEL THAT THE RULES ARE CONSTANTLY STACKED AGAINST THEM.  AND,THAT WHEN THEY FINALLY DO START TO GET AHEAD, THE RULES GET CHANGED.

●    THE FEELINGS OF BOTH GROUPS OF FIREFIGHTERS ARE MIRRORED IN THEHOPES OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO SEEK FAIRNESS IN THEIR LIVES.

CONCLUSION●    THIS IS AN ISSUE WHERE ADVOCATES FOR BOTH SIDES WILL CONTINUE TOPRESS THEIR VIEW.

●    ON THE COURT ITSELF I WOULD NOTE THAT JUSTICE SCALIA IN HISCONCURRING OPINION OBSERVED THAT THE COURT IS ONLY POSTPONING THE DAY INWHICH THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT MUST BE SQUARED WITH THE CONSTITUTION’SGUARANTEE OF EQUAL PROTECTION.  IN OTHER WORDS TO CONFRONT THE ISSUE OFTHE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

●    AT THE SAME TIME JUSTICE GINSBERG IN HER DISSENT SAYS THAT THECOURTS ORDER AND OPINION WILL NOT HAVE STAYING POWER.●    FOR MY PART I WOULD ADD TWO OBSERVATIONS.

●    FIRST, THAT I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT ALL THE OFFICIALS INVOLVED INTHE CITY’S DECISION ACTED IN GOOD FAITH;

●    AND SECOND, THAT WE HAVE MORE WORK TO DO IN THIS COUNTRY TOENSURE A JUST AND CIVIL SOCIETY THAT LIVES UP TO THE PROMISE OF AMERICA.A PROMISE THAT ALL AMERICANS CAN FEEL AND SEE IS REAL – A PROMISETHAT IN OUR TIME STILL DEMANDS THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY ROBUST CIVILRIGHTS LAW.

[END]