Will firefighter ruling harm Sotomayor?
Updated on 30 June 2009
A US Supreme Court decision in favour of a group of white New Haven firefighters has implications for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, writes Felicity Spector.
It's a ruling which could transform the landscape of America's civil rights law and how far employers - especially in the public sector - are able to introduce more diversity into the workplace.
In a predictable 5-4 split along liberal and conservative lines, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of a group of white firefighters in their reverse discrimination suit against the city of New Haven.
The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test in which many white firefighters had done well, but no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have been eligible for a higher rank. A panel of appeal judges - including President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor - rejected the white firefighters' argument that their rights had been violated.
But that decision's now been overturned for the conservative majority, with an opinion explained by Justice Anthony Kennedy: "Whatever the city's ultimate aim - however well intentioned or benevolent it might have seemed - the city made its employment decision because of race."
But there's a long tradition of racial discrimination in the fire service - and not against whites. For decades minority firefighters have fought a series of lawsuits based on civil rights statutes - and as Slate's Emily Bazelon and Nicole Allen reveal competition over jobs has been seen as a battle between racial groups for at least two generations. Nationally, they point out, only 8.2 per cent of firefighters and 5.8 per cent of supervisers are black.
So the city of New Haven was either acting in pursuit of what it saw as a more fair distribution of senior jobs - or taking jobs away from white applicants who'd worked hard to get promoted. One of those involved in the Ricci v DeStefano case had studied for hours each day to overcome his dyslexia in order to pass the test.
Outside court yesterday their supporters were overjoyed, lawyer Karen Torre declaring that the court had rejected “attempts to lower professional standards of competence for the sake of identity politics”.
But the four dissenting judges were more concerned for the future balance of the workplace. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg put it in her minority opinion: "Congress endeavoured to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form. The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold.”
And what of the potential damage to Sonia Sotomayor, whose original decision in this case was rejected? So far there aren't many who believe it will seriously affect her chances of being confirmed when she appears before the senate hearings next month - although it will become a focus for her critics who didn't think much of her remark that a “wise Latina woman” would decide discrimination cases better than a white man.
The ranking Republican on the judiciary committee - in the Washington Post - says it will “sharpen our focus on Judge Sotomayor's troubling speeches and writings, which indicate... that personal experiences and political views should influence a judge's decision”. But White House spokesman Robert Gibbs quickly rushed to her defence, saying the ruling had little political significance in terms of her future.
Outside New Haven's city hall yesterday, the firefighter whose name will forever adorn this case, Frank Ricci, said it proved “If you can work hard, you can succeed in America.” A story that could equally apply to Sonia
Sotomayor's stratospheric rise from the Bronx to - possibly - the highest court in the land. A black man as president. A Hispanic Supreme Court judge. But minorities more equally represented in the leadership of the Fire Service? That's a leap that could now take a lot longer to achieve.
