|
|
|
  High Court Issues Ruling In Reverse Bias Case.Ogletree Deakins - August 13, 2009 On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 ruling, that the City of New Haven's decision to discard test results that were used to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that the City's race-based rejection of the test results cannot satisfy the "strong-basis-in-evidence standard," which the Court adopted to resolve conflicts between Title VII's disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions. According to the Court, "[f]ear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions." Report Link Court Limits Employer Options For Avoiding Bias Claims (pdf).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 10, 2009 A central focus of Supreme Court nominee
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing
is her decision in a controversial reverse
discrimination case brought by white firefighters
in Connecticut. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the white firefighters, whereas
Judge Sotomayor was part of a 3 judge
panel which rejected that claim. Here’s what
happened and why you should be concerned. Report Link Supreme Court Rules for White Firefighters in Bias Claim.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 01, 2009 In a much-awaited decision issued on its last day in session, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the City of New Haven improperly discriminated on the basis of race when it refused to certify the results of a promotional test on which white and Hispanic firefighters outperformed their black colleagues. Ricci v. DeStefano, Nos. 07-1428 & 08-328 (June 29, 2009). A 5-4 majority of the Court rejected the City’s argument that it disregarded the test results to avoid violating Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions. Report Link Out of the Frying Pan and into the Fire: Supreme Court Issues Favorable Ruling forWhite Firefighters in Reverse Discrimination Case.Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC - July 01, 2009 Query: May an employer make a race-based employment decision when it discovers that one of its employment tests or policies has the unintended effect of creating an adverse impact on another racial classification? Report Link Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Firefighters In Reverse Discrimination Case.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - June 30, 2009 In one of the most important employment law cases of the decade, the U.S. Supreme Court handed employees a 5-4 victory by recognizing that even good-faith employment decisions can sometimes lead to results that give rise to lawsuits if those results fall more harshly on one class of employees than on another. Report Link Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Firefighters in High-Profile Discrimination Case, Sets New Standard for Evaluating Disparate Treatment Versus Disparate Impact.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 30, 2009 Today the Supreme Court resolved an inherent tension between Title VII's disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions, holding that the mere desire to avoid liability under Title VII's disparate impact provision does not automatically justify a conscious decision to violate the statute's disparate treatment provision. See Ricci v. DeStefano (June 29, 2009). Title VII's disparate treatment provision prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of a protected category, while the disparate impact provision prohibits certain practices that are not intended to discriminate but, in fact, have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities. Recognizing the difficulty employers may face in balancing these competing interests, the Court adopted a "strong basis in evidence" test to be used in such situations. Under this standard, employers must demonstrate that a strong basis in evidence exists that their actions might violate Title VII's disparate impact provisions before employers can make race-based decisions. Report Link Supreme Court Issues Ruling In Firefighter “Reverse” Discrimination Case.Ogletree Deakins - June 30, 2009 On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that the City of New Haven’s action in discarding test results that were used to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that the City’s race-based rejection of the test results cannot satisfy the strong-basis-in-evidence standard, which the Court adopted to resolve any conflict between Title VII’s disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions. According to the Court, “[f]ear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.” Report Link White, Hispanic Firefighters' Race Bias Suit before U.S. Supreme Court.Jackson Lewis LLP - April 23, 2009 The U.S. Supreme Court considered, on April 22, whether a municipality can reject the results of civil service tests used for promotions if they yield racially disproportionate results. Ricci v. DeStefano (Nos. 07-1428 & 08-328). The Court’s decision may draw the line between permissible race-consciousness and unlawful race discrimination — a clarification that would be welcomed by employers. Report Link Court Rejects Reverse Discrimination Claims Based on Speculative Evidence.Ogletree Deakins - December 16, 2008 Plaintiff was employed by Rowan University as an administrative assistant for approximately five years but was transferred to a different department after she received successive unsatisfactory performance evaluations under a new Dean. Plaintiff was eventually terminated. Several months prior to the end of Plaintiff's tenure at the University, a Hispanic woman was hired for the administrative assistant position that Plaintiff previously held. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed several discrimination claims (including an allegation of reverse racial discrimination).
|
ArticlesFound: 9 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
A Littler OFCCP Webinar Series
Webinar
March 15, 2010 LittlerCreating and Keeping Employment Law RecordsWebinar
March 16, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsUsing Serengeti Tracker - More Than a Matter Management ToolPortland
March 16, 2010 LittlerWho Says Social Networking Is Just for Kids?Indianapolis
March 16, 2010 LittlerAdvanced Executive BriefingJacksonville
March 17, 2010 ConstangyManaging Intermittent Leave and the Medical Certification Process Under FMLAWebinar
March 17, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsWho Says Social Networking Is Just for Kids?Chicago
March 17, 2010 LittlerHR Madness: The Road to a Winning WorkplaceJacksonville
March 18, 2010 ConstangyCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplyOntario
March 18, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsUnder Pressure: What You Need to Know About Immigration Regs. to Keep Your Health Care OrganizationWebinar
March 18, 2010 Vedder Price |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2010 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds