This could have huge implications, methinks.....

<link>

If the city of New Haven had processed the test results and then been subject to a suit by black and hispanic firefighters which showed (or did not show) the test to be discriminatory, the outcome might have been different (and it might never have gone to The Supremes at all). A close readiing of the decision seems to show it hinging on New Haven's throwing out the test on the unproven assumption that the state would have been sued. From your link:

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” the majority said.

It was New Haven's peremptory decision that skewed the case, more than any other factor (as I read it).

My knee-jerk feeling on this always was that the city shouldn't have thrown out results. After all, at least two other disadvantaged minorities (one Hispanic, another with a learning disability) did pass. So while I can understand the previous ruling by Sotomayor and others that the city should be allowed to decide, I am actually happy this got overturned.

"If the city of New Haven had processed the test results and then been subject to a suit by black and hispanic firefighters which showed (or did not show) the test to be discriminatory,"

As you have some insight, what would be the grounds for demonstrating that the test was discriminatory? Guess I need to see if I can find the test inline.

Have had no luck finding test online, but here's an article about test that I did find that provides some (albeit incomplete) information:

<link>

New Haven was sitting on the test, because it could have helped Ricci's case. Now that it's over, we may get to finally see it online.

I could understand why New Haven took the course of action they did, to attempt to head off a lawsuit by the black firefighters. But, once they knew a suit was being filed by a white firefighter, they should have had the test certified, so they could determine if there was actual bias or not.

All in all, I'm glad Ricci won.

This case represents progress regarding race relations in our nation. The mandates that were unfortunately required in order to alleviate our long established institutionalized racial discrimination were inherently unfair from the beginning. They were, at best, an example of fighting fire with fire. As soon as the flames have been adequately extinguished, we need to return to policies that are truly fair and colorblind. I see this case as a small step in that direction.

I don't consider myself any kind of expert on the subject, but tests have been shown to be discriminatory in a couple of ways - one is in the nature and phrasing of the questions themselves (the old cultural bias business, which I do have some problems with); the other - and more pertinent to my way of thinking - are tests where the questions which do not necessarily measure the qualities needed for a particular job but which do have the effect of favoring one group (or class) over another. For example, there could be questions about management of personnel in a test for a non-management position. I'm not at all arguing that most - or even many - such tests are disciminatory (and I have very mixed feelings about the history and current state of affirmative action policies), simply that in the past there have been tests which have been shown to be clearly discriminatory, and that there are ways to make that judgement.

In the instant case, I really have no idea whether the test was or was not discriminatory. I'm simply reacting to the narrow grounds of the decision which seem to rest primarily on New Haven's decision to discard the test without having it assessed because of the city's - let's all feel the irony here! - fear of a lawsuit.

I guess what I am taking out from this is that the test was not (at least allegedly in this case) written with race in mind. Therefore it seems to me that a mere incidental impact is not enough (i.e. if it was, would one have to give preference to non-Hispanic Spanish-language translators?) and that that there would have to be an actual hostility towards black folk being promoted as a motivating factor present to show discrimination. To my mind the city should have simply looked into the issue and addressed the apparent bias in the test the next time around. However, there is a question as to whether the court should force the issue.

So in my mind, this is a sound ruling on a close and difficult issue. IMO, it does seem that there is an equal protection claim here, and I think the ruling is sound.

Not sure how wide the implications of this will be, but the City did wrong here to set aside the results of its own mandated test simply because it didn't bring about the racial mix the City thought it should, or because the City was scared of lawsuits.

People should just reverse the colors and think about how you'd see it then - would it be OK to set aside a test that promoted a number of BLACK firefighters and left out the WHITES? Such a thing might well have occurred and not that long ago, either...