We might discover that those who did not pass and those who passed but did not score high enough to get promoted might have done just fine on those "non job related" questions. The assumption seems to be that these questions are the root of the problem. I'm addressing not the "letter of the law" but rather the "spirit." Maybe they failed the "job related" questions.

This would leave us to examine why we would want people who couldn't pass "job related" questions on a "public safety related examination" to be placed in positions of greater authority and responsibility in the public safety arena.

Ostensibly to right a past wrong. Seems a high price to pay…and one that doesn't right the wrong. The most reprehensible wrong (after slavery itself) was the denial of quality basic education and access to institutions of higher learning. It seems that this wrong has been largely and aggressively addressed.

Why then would we take individuals who have access and success in higher learning and not hold them to the same standard as whites? Not doing so seems to say they are not as smart, not able to grasp the relevant material due to some innate shortcoming? Well, they are as smart and they are as capable…as a group. Just as each of our individual shortcomings reflects on us, their individual short comings should reflect on them not their "group."

Should Hayden have been overruled, of course. Disparate impact in some cases does not expose discrimination…it exposes inability, inattentiveness or lack of commitment on the part of individuals. Relying on it throws the baby out with the bath water. Not because discrimination is a thing of the past but because we should not see discrimination where it does not exist nor should we discriminate to absolve ourselves of past discrimination.
Tom S.

Ricci prevails. Amen. Chalk one up for common sense and decency. The concept of equal result and disparate impact needed to be junked.

Too bad the theft of my rights and my co-plaintiffs rights can't be restored.

At least Hayden V. Nassau has been unmasked as a fraudulent precedent and a railroad job by racial profilers operating under the protective hand of the government.

Taxpayers (individuals) deserve the best high performing firefighters to protect against property damage and loss of life. If the tests validly and reliably identify individuals (not groups) who are the best high performers, they should be accepted by government officials, unless they can prove cutlural bias.

Your posting would have been far more effective had you left off the last sentence accusing those who disagree with you of being "demagogues." That is precisely why your partisan hackmanship is so unpersuasive.

What is legal about giving a "competitive" employment test, that relies heavily on psychometric measures of personality with a minor emphasis on cognitive reasoning (in order to satisfy minimal job related and validity requirements), and then based upon the racial composition of the ranked scoring, (after the test is given), manipulate the result by discarding content that serves to elevate minorities and females, no longer making it competitive? And in order to do that the feds violated their own "Uniform Guidelines" in testing by gutting cognitive content and forsaking validity. However those facts were suppressed throughout our case.

If you are the defendant(s), who controls a "Federal Consent Decree" to increase minorities in the Nassau Police Department, that was crafted with Federal Judge Jacob Mishler, who is then feeble and senile when Hayden plaintiffs attempt to get their day in court; and all you get are motions to dismiss, no discovery, and a united and unanimous front by the County, Federal Government and the Judiciary to shield the scam- how will truth prevail?

There was an apple-cart to be upset of D.O.J approved psychometric test vendors; D.O.J career hacks who crafted the Nassau Consent decree; Special Counsels; and Minority Special Rights Groups- what would it look like if it was proven that the Nassau Police test, with candidates paying $100 dollars a head to compete, was no better than a coin-flip or a roll of dice in picking police candidates?

What results is a lop-sided horrendous precedent (Hayden V. Nassau) that allows the government to "racial profile" for minority employees at the risk of lower standards and less public safety which results in the elevation of both unfit white and minority candidates.

Please read http://www.ipacweb.org/files/nassau/gottfredson3.html to get a better grasp of what occurred with the Nassau Police Test and the basis for my lawsuit.

Having read the briefs,it is clear that New Haven took every step possible to avoid an adverse impact on the minority applicants. For example the oral board examiners were predominantly black fire officers from other jurisdictions.

The case is closer to Washington v Davis than Feeney. In Washington v Davis black applicants to the police department challenged a test wherein whites were disproportionately achieving higher scores than blacks. The Supreme Court required a showing of discriminatory intent rather than impact before they'd require changes. In New Haven the race neutral exam produced results that the black mayor didn't like. BECAUSE OF THOSE RESULTS (too many white guys) the test was tossed. It sounds like a discriminatory intention to me.

Attempting to comply with the Civil Rights Act after you have already complied with the Civil Rights Act is not a valid basis to do away with merit and fitness based promotions.

Attempting to avoid an adverse impact by taking overt action that creates an adverse impact violates the Equal Protection clause.

Sotomayor followed the law! She did not give her fellow Hispanic Mr. Ricci an empathy break or any special favour. SHE FOLLOWED THE LAW.

So, dear racists, what's the problem?

I guess that is one more insurance of "group rights" versus "individual rights and liberty."

The railroaded results of our lawsuit has been used to cloak insidious discriminatory practices committed under the forceful hand of the US Justice Dept. Civil Rights division utilizing "racial profiling" of competitive test results and adjusting those results after a test is given. Since the outright use of racial quotas had been nixed, they came up with a way to "consent decree" municipalities and then manipulate competetive testing with favored test vendors as a way of "coin tossing" test results.

In my case, the government threw roadblocks up every step of the way to "discovery" by our side with the wink and nod of the left-leaning judiciary every step of the way. This included "Republican" judges would held extremely liberal and "progressive" positions. We were granted absolutely NO DISCOVERY and only argued motions all the way to dismissal.

We had expert witnesses that were prepared to testify that the feds violated there own "Federal Guidelines" in employment testing. We were not allowed discovery and never got a fair hearing to present expert witnesses.

Our attorney was rudely cut off and verbally berated every time he tried to make a point in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. A novice Justice Department attorney who happened to be a "minority" member was allowed to ramble on about the history of discrimination and the "plaintiffs" attempts to "roll-back" civil rights.

If the case particulars to the final Hayden v. Nassau decision was studied and reviewed, one would find that we were "railroaded" every step of the way towards this horrendous decision. Thanks to Martin Kaufman, Atlantic Legal Foundation for his single handed attempt to right wrong with this case.

I regret it set the "crappy" precedent it did, bolstering the feds exercise of "racial profiling" in "competitive testing" and ultimately discrimination against citizens as "individuals" deserving equal protection under the law.