Can anyone tell me how this was discrimination, I am sooo confused.
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
May 24, 2010 12:18pm CST
Maybe I am not getting the whole story here but from what I have read the Supreme court ruled a test for firefighters in Chicago was discrimatory. Basically you had to score a 69 points to be considered for the job...but the state has so many applying...and so few openings that they set a second bar...at 89 points. Which means they were only hiring the people who made the highest scores...meaning the most qualified. Well how is that discrimination? I don't know a boss out there that is not looking to hire the most qualified person they can.
Well because only 11% of African Americans who took the test scored over 89 points they are screaming discrimination, took it to court and have won.
The Supreme court has told Chicago that they have to go back and hire 132 African Americans who took the fire fighter test and scored above 69 points. Plus they have to calcuate what the back pay would be and distribute it to the rest of african american applicants.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_bi_ge/us_supreme_court_firefighters_lawsuit
Anyone else confused by this? I mean come on...if your house is on fire...or you have a heart attack (fire fighters are sent to more than just fires but also medical emergencies) do you want the guy who scored a 69 or the guy who scored about a 89 to take care of you? Also shouldn't employers (even teh city and state) be able to hire the best quailifed person for a job?
Isn't this discriminating against teh guys who scored better and were better qualified for job...but just because they were not black they can't get the job. In a country that is supposively pushing to STOP seeing skin color and treat everyone eqaul...isn't this doing the opposite? It is making employers see skin color.
Give me your thoughts on this. I am not understanding this ruling at all.
2 people like this
9 responses
@marinarovi (1318)
• Argentina
24 May 10
Hi lilwonders456,
I agree with you, any employer has the right to choose the most qualified for the job, I don't see why they have to hire people below 89 points just because they were african americans...
What about white people who scored above 69 points? Did the Supreme court made them hire those as well or only black people?
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
24 May 10
only the blacks that scored above 69 points but under the 89 points are the ones they have to go back and hire. The white ones are just out of luck. Isn't that discrimination against the white ones?
1 person likes this
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
24 May 10
I have tried to follow this also and even on PBS and NPR it has been muddled. Both of these sources follow the court very closely and fairly.
As I understand it, there were some inside politics and manuvers that come into play in the courts decision. When they changed the scoring system and the true motivation behind that timeline.
If you change the rules knowing that it will discriminate and that is your intention then that becomes the problem. This is the best that I understand it.
Frankly, with this current court and how they have been ruling as late, I am astounded that they went with this ruling.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
24 May 10
How was it discrimatory if they decided to up the bar due to how many people were applying versus how many job openings there were. The top scorers got the job...the lowers did not. I don't see it based on skin color at all. I see it based on how well they knew the material on the test.
The supreme court blew it big time on this one.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
24 May 10
If these firefighters when into the exam having been told they had to made a score of 69 or better in order to get promoted, and then, after making a score of 69, are told, no you have to make 89, they have every right to sue. I don't know that I would call it discrimination. To me it's more like breach of contract. And it looks to me as though the supreme court is only saying the plaintiffs got their law suit in on time.
Any company has the right to hire the person who is most qualified for the job, but a deal is a deal. Maybe they shouldn't tell the applicants ahead of time what their scores have to be in order to get hired or promoted, or maybe they should only allow a certain number to apply.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
24 May 10
It's no different to me than when you apply for a certain program in college. When I wanted to major in film it said you must have a 3.0 GPA. Due to the number of applications, they raised the bar to 3.8 (this was at UCF right after The Blair Witch Project). The Post Office does the same thing. It only takes a 70 on the exam to qualify, but they don't typically hire anyone with less than a 90 because so many people take the test and apply. I scored an 89, but didn't cry discrimination when they didn't hire me.
Unless they flat out told people they were guaranteed a job if they scored over 69, then they did nothing wrong.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
25 May 10
I went back to the article. It really doesn't say what the applicants were told about getting a job. All it says is that a passing score is over 64 points. I suppose it all depends on what the city actually told the applicants, yes you'll get a job if you score over 64 points, or yes you will be considered for a job if you score over 64 points. Anyway, the plaintiffs got their lawsuit in on time and that's what the article is really about. I still say it's not discrimination, not racial discrimination anyway.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
24 May 10
Anyone can apply. They tell them a 69 is a pass (to be considered but not guarenteed to be hired). But so many people were applying AND scoring really high on it that they decided to only look at the ones scoring an 89 or better.
I dont' see this as discrimination. Just trying to fill the positions with best people possible.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
24 May 10
That is your affirmative action in play. Wonderful thing isnt it? Your ability has nothing to do with it. Your race now determines your eligibility for a job.... yep that sounds right!
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
24 May 10
Which is discrimination...which is what it was suppost to stop. LOL. or I would laugh if it was not so messed up.
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
24 May 10
It looks like the Supreme court ruled that the firefighters did not file their claims too late so the case goes back to the Circuit Court of Appeals, which I'm assuming overturned the original win in District court based on that technicality.
I do agree with you though...the fire dept should be free to hire only the most qualified applicants but they left themselves open to this legal action by changing the standard when it came to the test and openly telling applicants about it. What they should have done was to simply consider only the most qualified based on a combination of the test score, training and experience. I don't feel that raising the test score standard discriminates against only the black firefighters, I think it discriminates against everyone who scored below 89 points.
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
25 May 10
Because when you give folks the opportunity to play the race card, they will. That's why they shouldn't have changed the standard. They should have considered everyone who scored above the original limit and then chosen the best from that group. The problem is that there was a VERY large group of applicants so they tried to make things easier for themselves and opened a can of worms.
I was in a similar situation once. We had some tech positions open and received a LOT of applications. My boss wanted to up the closing date because I had so many to go through but HR wouldn't let her. We still only selected a set number of people to interview.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
24 May 10
yet they are only making them hire black applicants.
I dont' see it as discrimatory to change the standard.....they want the best...so the only consider teh best. How is that discriminatory?
@Beautyfactor (1512)
•
27 May 10
I agree with you too. the court ruling just does not make any sense at all. of course you would want to employ the most professional, experienced and capable people that you could find, so hiring the standards for the test was a reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
24 May 10
It is just me but is "reverse discrimination" become an Ok thing in this country?
You see it more and more.
Personally I just wanted everyone treated the same. No special rights for anyone based on their gender or color.
But it seems to have gone the other way. Wonder how many white firefighters are going to get laid off now to hire the less quified ones the court is making them hire.....wonder if htey can sue?
@dawnald (85135)
• Shingle Springs, California
27 May 10
Unless there was some evidence that the test was skewed against African_Americans in some way, I don't get it either...
@mercuryman3a (2477)
• India
25 May 10
This exactly is what is happening in most countries where color caste and creed are used as a tool to get jobs by citing discrimination. In India the government has reserved a certain percentage of jobs (at places 50% reservation is there) for people of a particular caste or community. The reservation not only is done for securing jobs, but also for promotion once they are in the job. They not only get the job with lower grades, they get promotions too before you and me despite poor performance, because the promotions are reserved for them. This is a reverse discrimination to atoned for the past discrimination against those communities. it is silly, but it exists. This is all vote bank politics.
@LilPixelle (828)
• United States
25 May 10
...I think this is related to the whole Rand Paul fiasco too. It's not discrimination, just a practice of free business, or in this case freedom to choose who is best qualified.
