m37652s:
degsme:
A Dude: And you know the written portion was biased?
The LAW puts the ONUS on the NHFD to PROVE that it wasn't biased.
Wait... So by this definition, I can say you're biased against a group and unless you prove without a shadow of a doubt that you aren't, then I win the argument? Somehow, I'm not sure that's how the law works...
You are right. It doesn't work that way. I first have to show a Disparate Impact of that hiring practice.
So in the case of Hooters, I can show that they only hire women wait-staff. BUT since their business plan is one that uses big breasted women to attract male customers, then it is a "reasonable" business criteria. But using EXACTLY THE SAME criteria in hiring steno pool, would be a violation of Disparate Impact because you would not be able to show how being a large breasted female has anything to do with the ability to take stenography.
In this case, SCOTUS has ruled that Disparate Impact exists prima facia. But what they ruled in addition was that because no one had filed a law suit, NHFD had no "substantial basis" to believe that such a suit would be filed.
Now that one has been filed, it is up to NHFD to PROVE that the test is unbiased, OR to engage in some other means of settling the Disparate Impact.
Ricci was a dumb call on the part of SCOTUS
