The Glade 4.0

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I did a lot of reading of various articles and blogs on this yesterday...basically, it does not matter if the test is applicable to the job. The only thing that matters in the eyes of the law is that a large percentage of minorities who took the test failed, while a large percentage of white people who took the test passed.

That is the bottom line and the one and only reason it was declared discriminatory and there is a law on the books to back up that decision.


It's further compounded by some who claim that it is educationally discriminatory because in NY, minorities don't do well in the educational system and they drop out and since the "basic math" on the exam is at a 10th grade level and many minorities do not have 10th grade math capabilities, well, the test is now unfairly catering towards white people who receive a better education because of the discrimination inherent in the system that diverts all educational funds to the white people and leaves black people without enough money for a good education, which is why they can't pass the tests...because white people took the money for the schools so minorities didn't have the same educational opportunities and so, discrimination is why they don't have the skills needed to pass the test to begin with...supposedly the white people know this and purposefully formulated a test with 10th grade math skills on it because they knew the minorities wouldn't be able to pass it.....at least, that's the summed up argument condensed from several blogs and articles that I read yesterday.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

No offense, but did you read Nitefox blogs (sorry bro your reading materials have a slant) or did you read legal blogs?
http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/vds.ns ... enDocument

http://banktalk.org/2012/01/18/magner-v ... act-claim/

http://www.housingwire.com/content/anot ... reme-court

Disparate impact does get overturned. *hunkers down and waits for Khross to scream bloody-murder*

_________________

NF and I surprisingly talk very little about politics at home. I googled and read what I found. I guess for future reference, I should keep a notepad handy and copy the links of every blog and article I read, eh?

Going back, here are links of two things that I read:

http://www.ournewsnow.com/opinion/1852/The-Myth-That-Is-The-Racist-FDNY-Exam

http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-12-15/news/fdny-extrance-exam-non-white-hiring/

About to go read your links, Hop, thanks.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Ok, Hop, the first article you linked was a disparate impact claim for post-hiring practices which doesn't seem relevant to the current case. But the second link was much more interesting:

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Disparate Impact isn't limited just to hiring, you should see what is going on with lending practices. Some people here have argued that application of Title VII to housing loans directly led to the housing bubble.

_________________

LK - I'm definitely not an employment law expert, but my understanding is that there are three steps to the analysis in a disparate impact case. First, the plaintiff has to show that the practice being challenged has a substantial disparate impact on a protected class (e.g. an employment test that a disproportionate number of black applicants fail). Second, assuming the plaintiff makes it over that initial threshold, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the challenged practice has a legitimate business purpose. Finally, depending on which Federal Circuit the case is in (I believe there's currently a split among the courts), either the defendant has the burden of showing that no equally effective but less-discriminatory alternative is reasonably available or the plaintiff has the burden of showing that such an alternative is available.

In practice, it's hard for plaintiffs to actually win disparate impact cases, because there's almost always a legitimate business purpose and it's very difficult to show that some less-discriminatory alternative would be just as effective. Also, in recent years, the USSC has been reigning in the analysis and hinting that disparate impact laws may be incompatible with Equal Protection. However, the risk of getting sued has prompted most big employers to engage in cya reviews of their own hiring practices to make sure they aren't vulnerable to a disparate impact lawsuit.

Personally, I'm not a fan of disparate impact legislation, particularly in the current day and age. When it first passed, in 1964, I think there was a much stronger argument that it was justified as a means of reversing the cumulative effects of intentional discrimination as quickly as possible, but in 2012, it's mostly a counterproductive relic.

Congress! Proposing to apply this to Congress would motivate them to solve this issue right quick.

I look forward to all the white guys who didn't make an NBA team to use this to their advantage. If memory serves me, the NY Knicks have one lone white guy.

LET THE CAUCASIAN INVASION BEGIN!!

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

That's funny, NF.

Out of curiosity, in regards to disparate impact, are the minorities covered by it the ones who would be considered minorities only in that particular case (like the NBA) or does it cover only minorities on a national level (based on census data in the general population)?

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Amusing as his statement is, Nitefox's argument doesn't hold water. The NBA can easily demonstrate the business necessity of hiring the most athletic players regardless of race. (probably why Hockey doesn't have any ethnic diversity, or baseball either for that matter)

You can see your answer here:
http://users.aristotle.net/~hantley/hie ... otclas.htm
(includes court cases that have modified/clarified/restricted/expanded the original legislation)

_________________

Just to clarify - it's not limited to minorities. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of certain general categories such as race (not specific races, just race in general), sex (not just women), religion (not any specific religion), etc. So discrimination against white, Christian males is just as illegal as discrimination against any other group. As for your question, though, when bringing a lawsuit based on disparate impact (or any other illegal discrimination), statistics related to the particular industry, region, company or whatever are usually more persuasive than broad national statistics.

And what are their qualifications for determining who is the most athletic player?

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

I'd suppose whoever scores the most, gets the most rebounds, is fastest, tallest, blocks the most shots, etc. I stopped watching basketball after Jordan made it not a team-sport anymore.

_________________

But too many white people fail in that..... Couldn't we file a disparate impact claim? Isn't that kinda exactly what happened with this FDNY thing? And since it's stupid in both instances, can't we just throw it out?

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

But too many white people fail in that..... Couldn't we file a disparate impact claim? Isn't that kinda exactly what happened with this FDNY thing? And since it's stupid in both instances, can't we just throw it out?[/quote
No. NBA can prove legitimately business necessity and if NYFD had their **** together they could've too. Now they will just have to wait forever for SCOTUS to review or deny their appeal.

_________________