WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said today in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.
The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide, potentially limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for decisions when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities.
“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters “understandably attract this court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”
Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg’s dissent, which she read aloud in court today.
Kennedy’s opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.
But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with “indisputably complex and far from well-settled” questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.
“This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal,” Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit’s decision not to hear the case.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Sotomayor should not be criticized for the unsigned appeals court decision, which he asserted she did not write. “Judge Sotomayor and the lower court panel did what judges are supposed to do, they followed precedent,” said the Vermont Democrat who will preside over Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings next month.
Leahy also called the high court decision “cramped” and wrong.
In New Haven, Nancy Ricci, whose son, Frank, was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit, carried a large cake decorated with red, white and blue frosting into the law office where the firefighters were celebrating their victory.
Ricci’s father, Jim Ricci said the ruling is a victory for firefighters across the country. “Now we’re going to get the best managers as far as firefighters go. That’s really important,” Ricci said.
Today’s decision has its origins in New Haven’s need to fill vacancies for lieutenants and captains in its fire department. It hired an outside firm to design a test, which was given to 77 candidates for lieutenant and 41 candidates for captain.
Fifty-six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, 22 blacks and 18 Hispanics. But of those, only 17 whites and two Hispanics could expect promotion.
The city eventually decided not to use the exam to determine promotions. It said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a “disparate impact” on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law’s prohibition on intentional discrimination.
Kennedy said an employer needs a “strong basis in evidence” to believe it will be held liable in a disparate impact lawsuit. New Haven had no such evidence, he said.
The city declined to validate the test after it was given, a step that could have identified flaws or determined that there were no serious problems with it. In addition, city officials could not say what was wrong with the test, other than the racially skewed results.
In other action today, the justices:
— Failed to decide on whether a scathing documentary about Hillary Rodham Clinton that was shown during the presidential race should be regulated as if it were a campaign ad. The court said it will hear arguments in the case again on Sept. 9.
A conservative not-for-profit group wanted to air ads for the movie in Democratic primary states and also make the film available to cable subscribers on demand without complying with federal campaign finance law.
But lower courts have said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.
— Refused to allow victims of the Sept. 11 attacks to pursue lawsuits against Saudi Arabia and four of its princes over charitable donations that were allegedly funneled to al-Qaida.
The court is leaving in place the ruling of a federal appeals court that the country and the princes are protected by sovereign immunity, which generally means that foreign countries can’t be sued in American courts.
The Obama administration had angered some victims and families by urging the justices to pass up the case.
— Left in place a court order barring Missouri from enforcing a law limiting protests near funerals.
The justices refused without comment to hear Missouri’s appeal. The state enacted a law aimed at religious picketers who have turned up at soldiers’ funerals. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., claim God allows soldiers to be killed as punishment for the nation’s sins, including homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, idolatry and greed.
— Said they will not disturb a federal appeals court ruling that Cablevision Systems Corp.’s remote-storage DVR does not violate copyright laws.
For consumers, the action means that Cablevision and perhaps other cable system operators soon will be able to offer DVR service without need for a box in their homes. The remote storage unit exists on computer servers maintained by a cable provider.
— Declined to stop a school district from blocking a group of Christian students from forming a Bible club on campus.
The court refused to hear an appeal from the high school students who wanted to form the Truth Bible Club at Kentridge High School in Washington state in 2001.
The school refused to let the group be chartered as a school club. They cited the group’s name, the fact that students would have to pledge to Jesus Christ to vote in the club and that allowing the club in would bring religion into the school.
— Decided to intervene in a child custody dispute between a Texas mother and a British father that tests the boundaries of an international treaty.
The court agreed tio take its first look at how American authorities handle the Hague Convention on child abduction, aimed at preventing one parent from taking children to other countries without the other’s permission.
Adding to the case’s interest, the Obama administration joined the call for court review by approvingly citing a dissenting appeals court opinion by Sotomayor in a similar case.
— Agreed to decide whether the National Football League and its 32 teams can enter an exclusive licensing deal with a maker of team jerseys and other gear without violating federal antitrust law.
The court said it will hear an appeal from American Needle Inc., of Buffalo Grove, Ill., that challenges an agreement the NFL struck with Reebok International Ltd. American Needle had been one of many firms that manufactured NFL headwear until the league granted an exclusive contract to Reebok in 2001.
— Said state attorneys general can’t issue their own subpoenas in investigations against national banks.
However, the high court said that an attorney general can get a court to issue subpoenas in an investigation into those financial institutions.
— Won’t stop the state of New Hampshire from making doctors’ prescription-writing habits confidential over the objection of companies who analyze and sell that information.
The high court refused to hear an appeal from IMS Health Inc., of Norwalk, Conn.; and Verispan LLC, of Yardley, Pa. Those two companies collect, analyze and sell prescription information. They said the law violates their First Amendment right to free speech in pursuit of their business.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
