High court rules for Chicago black firefighter applicants
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/05/court-says-black-firefighter-lawsuit-can-proceed.html
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court dealt a potentially costly defeat to the city of Chicago today, reinstating a discrimination ruling in favor of 6,000 black applicants for firefighting jobs in the 1990s.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices said Chicago had used an entry-level test for the Chicago Fire Department that had a "disparate impact" based on race. And therefore, they said, the city was liable for paying damages to those applicants who had "qualified" scores on the test, but were excluded in favor of those who scored higher.
Earlier this year, a lawyer for black applicants estimated the total damages in the case could reach $100 million.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices said Chicago had used an entry-level test for the Chicago Fire Department that had a "disparate impact" based on race. And therefore, they said, the city was liable for paying damages to those applicants who had "qualified" scores on the test, but were excluded in favor of those who scored higher.
Earlier this year, a lawyer for black applicants estimated the total damages in the case could reach $100 million.
Monday's ruling is the latest twist in a long-running set of lawsuits over the use of civil service exams for hiring police and firefighters, both in Chicago and elsewhere.
Fire department engineer Gregory Boggs said that he smiled when he heard the news.
"I got a phone call from one of our attorneys," said Boggs, who is also president of the African American Firefighter's & Paramedic's League of Chicago, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "I was very excited. It's been a hard fight. Fifteen years is a long time."
The office of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley released this statement on the court's ruling: "For decades we have tried to diversify the Chicago Fire Department. But at every turn, like most cities, we have been met with legal challenges from both sides. Still, this administration remains committed to ensuring that the Department more reflects the racial make-up of the City. For the 2006 entrance exam, we made it pass/fail; we engaged in an extensive recruitment campaign in African-American neighborhoods; and we continue to use nationally recognized, African-American outside experts to create and administer the exam. We will continue this effort."
Mara Georges, Corporation Counsel for the Chicago Department of Law, said today that the "case is not over yet."
"The case has been remanded to the 7th [U.S.] Circuit Court of Appeals where is will be incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove two things," Georges said. "First, whether they preserve the argument that each use of the list has disparate impact. And second, whether they presented the necessary evidence to support that argument."
Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking at the court, said he and his colleagues were applying the civil rights laws as written by Congress, not necessarily as he and others think it should be written. Since 1991, federal law has made it illegal for employers to use an "employment practice" that had a "disparate impact on the basis of race."
The Chicago case began in 1995 when 26,000 applicants took a written test to become a city firefighter. Faced with the large number applicants for only several hundred jobs, the city decided it would only consider those who scored 89 or above.
This cut-off score excluded a high percentage of the minority applicants. And after a trial in 2005, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruled the test had an illegal "disparate impact" because the city had not justified the use of the cut-off score. Experts had testified that applicants who scored in the 70s or 80s were shown to be capable of succeeding as firefighters.
The city did not contest that conclusion, but it won a reversal from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on a procedural technicality. The appellate judges said the applicants had waited too long to sue. They had not sued during the year when the test results were released, but sued only after the scores were used to decide who would be hired.
Civil-rights lawyers appealed on behalf of Arthur Lewis and the other black applicants. They were joined by the Obama administration, which said the federal civil rights law forbids the "use" of discriminatory tests. And by that standard, the suit was filed on time.
The high court agreed Monday in Lewis v. Chicago. "Our charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted," Scalia said. The class of black applicants had sued at the time the test was used, and it resulted in their not being hired, he concluded.
The unanimous ruling stands in sharp contrast to the deep split within the Supreme Court last year over a case involving white firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut. They sued after they were denied promotions when the city scrapped a test because its impact on black applicants. They won a 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court saying they were victims of illegal discrimination.
Chicago's case involved the opposite situation. Where New Haven had backed away from using its test results, Chicago pressed ahead and was later sued for using a test that had a discriminatory impact on blacks.
In Monday's opinion, Scalia acknowledged this law creates "practical problems for employers" and can "produce puzzling results." He concluded, however, "it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal courts can fix."
-- David G. Savage
Cynthia Dizikes contributed to this report
Fire department engineer Gregory Boggs said that he smiled when he heard the news.
"I got a phone call from one of our attorneys," said Boggs, who is also president of the African American Firefighter's & Paramedic's League of Chicago, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "I was very excited. It's been a hard fight. Fifteen years is a long time."
The office of Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley released this statement on the court's ruling: "For decades we have tried to diversify the Chicago Fire Department. But at every turn, like most cities, we have been met with legal challenges from both sides. Still, this administration remains committed to ensuring that the Department more reflects the racial make-up of the City. For the 2006 entrance exam, we made it pass/fail; we engaged in an extensive recruitment campaign in African-American neighborhoods; and we continue to use nationally recognized, African-American outside experts to create and administer the exam. We will continue this effort."
Mara Georges, Corporation Counsel for the Chicago Department of Law, said today that the "case is not over yet."
"The case has been remanded to the 7th [U.S.] Circuit Court of Appeals where is will be incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove two things," Georges said. "First, whether they preserve the argument that each use of the list has disparate impact. And second, whether they presented the necessary evidence to support that argument."
Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking at the court, said he and his colleagues were applying the civil rights laws as written by Congress, not necessarily as he and others think it should be written. Since 1991, federal law has made it illegal for employers to use an "employment practice" that had a "disparate impact on the basis of race."
The Chicago case began in 1995 when 26,000 applicants took a written test to become a city firefighter. Faced with the large number applicants for only several hundred jobs, the city decided it would only consider those who scored 89 or above.
This cut-off score excluded a high percentage of the minority applicants. And after a trial in 2005, U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruled the test had an illegal "disparate impact" because the city had not justified the use of the cut-off score. Experts had testified that applicants who scored in the 70s or 80s were shown to be capable of succeeding as firefighters.
The city did not contest that conclusion, but it won a reversal from the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on a procedural technicality. The appellate judges said the applicants had waited too long to sue. They had not sued during the year when the test results were released, but sued only after the scores were used to decide who would be hired.
Civil-rights lawyers appealed on behalf of Arthur Lewis and the other black applicants. They were joined by the Obama administration, which said the federal civil rights law forbids the "use" of discriminatory tests. And by that standard, the suit was filed on time.
The high court agreed Monday in Lewis v. Chicago. "Our charge is to give effect to the law Congress enacted," Scalia said. The class of black applicants had sued at the time the test was used, and it resulted in their not being hired, he concluded.
The unanimous ruling stands in sharp contrast to the deep split within the Supreme Court last year over a case involving white firefighters from New Haven, Connecticut. They sued after they were denied promotions when the city scrapped a test because its impact on black applicants. They won a 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court saying they were victims of illegal discrimination.
Chicago's case involved the opposite situation. Where New Haven had backed away from using its test results, Chicago pressed ahead and was later sued for using a test that had a discriminatory impact on blacks.
In Monday's opinion, Scalia acknowledged this law creates "practical problems for employers" and can "produce puzzling results." He concluded, however, "it is a problem for Congress, not one that federal courts can fix."
-- David G. Savage
Cynthia Dizikes contributed to this report
Comments
Post a Comment