Jump to content

Talk:Ricci v. DeStefano

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I've found two lawsuits (so far) that are related to the fire department hiring and promotion practice in the face of CT's economic decline. CT's government employment fell 6% 2001-2003 and grew just 0.2% 2003-2005, just as an indication of the economic environment.

Mentioned in passing was the "fear of lawsuits if they did the promotions based on the test" but in fact, the city was already involved in a lawsuit because of promoting white fire fighters by not filling other civil service jobs. "the defendants’ use of ‘‘underfilling’’ as a means of funding promotions within the fire department. The plaintiffs alleged that underfilling is a discriminatory practice that ..." and "‘The additional lieutenants, who were all Caucasian of race and white of color, were promoted to their positions by virtue of the promotional practice of underfilling. . . . By allowing the improper, highly manipulative and subjective practice of underfilling to continue, the defendants have effectively so diluted the pool of eligible candidates for promotional positions within the [d]epartment that the plaintiffs’ opportunity to be promoted have been unfairly and adversely affected, resulting in their respective chances for promotional advancement being unfairly, substantially and discriminatorily diminished. Conversely, by virtue of the practice of underfilling, Caucasian, white firefighters of varying ranks, who are similarly situated to the plaintiffs have is proportionately benefitted with respect to promotions within the [d]epartment. . . ." See http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR270/270cr100.pdf

Also, a fire fighter job cut and a transfer to lower pay job caused a discrimination lawsuit. "Plaintiff John Brantley, an African-American firefighter employed by the City of New Haven, has sued the City and the Chief and Assistant Chief of the New Haven Fire Department. See Amended Compl. [doc. #17] ¶ 3-6. The complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988 and alleges that Brantley was fired in 2002 and, after a labor arbitration order, rehired in a lower-paid position in retaliation for public statements he made concerning racial diversity, in violation of his rights under the First Amendment." See http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/030305.JBA.Brantley.Sub.pdf

Still googling for more background to the actual budget, employment, and lawsuit context. Mulp (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How many took "the test?"

[edit]

Para. 2 says 118 took the New Haven 2003 "promotion exam." Para 4. says 77 "took the test." Is this a different year? I note P.2 says New Haven decided not to promote anyone. P.4 cites N.H. "scrapped" the test. DonL (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the References at the bottom of the article, specifically, Note 2. It states that 41 candidates took the Captain's Test, and the remaining 77 candidates took the Lieutenant's Test. So, it seems that 118 is the total number of test-takers who sought either promotion. Thus, that total figure (118) is the aggregate of the 41 Captain Exam test-takers plus the 77 Lieutenant Exam test-takers. Also, as to your second point: yes, the City of New Haven decided not to promote anyone, and they scrapped the test. Those two statements are not inconsistent. So, I am not quite sure what you are asking. Basically, they (the City) got the test results ... they did not like the results ... and they said, "Let's scrap this exam, let's fix this "bad" exam, and let's try to come up with a better exam. Let's not promote anyone at the present time ... let's just hold off on promotions until we get a better / fairer exam in place". That is the essence and the gist of what happened. Hopefully, this answers your questions. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Preparing for monday's release ...

[edit]

I just wanted to point out good resource for background material:

Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MAJORITY OPINION in wikitext

[edit]

I hope THIS will make it easier to summarize and/or cite to the majority opinion. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 14:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see the actual test

[edit]

Is the test freely available? (Or via a FOIA request). That would be relevant and interesting 69.181.146.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know if it's available or not. But it sure would improve the article if we could quote the questions that were claimed by the defendant to be discriminatory. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second this. I can't imagine what kind of questions on this type of test could be discriminatory. Tbsmith (talk) 09:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that there's nothing directly discriminatory in the test. Rather, the fact that no black candidates scored high enough was the sole reason for assuming that it was a biased test. The argument was based solely on the results.
That said, I don't see any point in including portions of the test in the article. The case didn't address whether or not this test contained discriminatory elements, but rather whether or not employers are allowed to discriminate based on race just to avoid potential lawsuits. (More on point, the coverage of the case hasn't focused on the specific content on the test, so I don't think the article should exceed the coverage of the references) 72.88.63.202 (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it will help I found this transcript Here of one of the CSB hearings. From what I've read, the test is subject to a confidently agreement between the city and I/O Solutions. --Emoedt (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUS member votes

[edit]

I think in this opinion, it is important to note who was in the majority and minority, since Souter is likely to be replaced by Sotomayor. Since Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer were the dissenters, this will not represent a shift if and when Sotomayor comes in. --rogerd (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sotomayor was bound by the 2nd circuit precedent in her decision. There is no reason to assume that she would have sided with the minority if she had heard this as a SC Justice.69.141.78.198 (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This piece could use a section discussing the dissent position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ricci background

[edit]

This article has information about Ricci's prior lawsuits and disputes with authority. These points don't bear directly on the legal issues before the Court in Ricci, but, as the linked article points out, the broader presentation of the case in the media includes an inaccurate depiction of Ricci as a reluctant plaintiff. We should summarize this information for our article. JamesMLane t c 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to start an article on Ricci, then such information might be appropriate there. The present article should not turn into a critique of Ricci's alleged litigious nature in unrelated litigation. This article needs work, e.g. there are footnotes that are bare URLs, and there is barely any mention about the controversial decision to issue a summary order by the Second Circuit. Unrelated litigation about Ricci's dyslexia does not belong here.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipated this argument and addressed it in my comment. JamesMLane t c 05:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the initial post in this thread points out: "These points don't bear directly on the legal issues before the Court in Ricci." Correct. They don't belong in the article. Whether the "broader presentation of the case in the media includes an inaccurate depiction of Ricci as a reluctant plaintiff" is irrelevant. But feel free to start a BLP violating article on Ricci to try and score some political points (see also Matt Sanchez). ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to read WP:AGF. JamesMLane t c 09:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question: is there a neutral source which places Ricci's litigation against the city in its proper context--i.e., not a source trying to score points prior to the nomination hearings? I would be uncomfortable using the source given (Slate's Dahlia Lithwick). Mackensen (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mr. Ricci has decided to make himself a political figure, a celebrity, and a standard-bearer by testifying at Judge Sotomayor's nomination hearings. His testimony will deserve to become a heading at Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination, or at a new page dedicated to the hearings. That would be a good context to discuss the politicization of Mr. Ricci's biography. JamesMLane, my instinct is that it's not too early to start such a header, in anticipation of his testimony. HOWEVER, the material doesn't belong here. (I was unduly eager in my response above.) Judges ignore a plaintiff's prior history when making their decisions, and readers who didn't know that would be deceived into thinking it was relevant to the decision. Agradman talk/contribs 14:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our article about a Supreme Court decision can include information about the consequences and sequelae of that decision. See Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.#Reaction and subsequent legislation for an example; obviously, the passage of the Fair Pay Act in 2009 didn't influence the decision handed down in 2007. I agree that we shouldn't give the reader a false impression about what was relevant to the decision, but we can present the information so as to make the point clear. JamesMLane t c 16:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


"Hearings of the Civil Service Board" section issues

[edit]

Two items that appear to need addressing, but I don't have the information to fix them, maybe another editor does. The first is that this article discusses the Civil Service Board, but does not explain what role the CSB has. Is it a city department? A Connecticut state agency? A federal body? As a reader I am unsure what their role is and why they influenced this case. Secondly, the third bullet point in this section contains a quote that says "In my professional opinion, it's facially neutral". Is that supposed to say "racially", rather than "facially"? Hopefully someone can verify these two items, they left this reader wondering.Bigfitz79 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ricci v. DeStefano. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ricci_v._DeStefano&oldid=1246048962"