Court Rules NYC Fire Department Uses Discriminatory Hiring Practices
The Federal District Court in Brooklyn ruled Wednesday that the New York City Fire Department uses discriminatory hiring practices against black and Hispanic applicants. According to the New York Times, Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis wrote in his decision that required examinations completed by applicants "unfairly excluded hundreds of qualified people of color from the opportunity to serve as New York City firefighters." The test, he ruled, does not test skills required to be a good firefighter.
The Center for Constitutional Rights filed the suit on behalf of the Vulcan Society, a fraternal order of black firefighters, and three individual applicants. The lawsuit followed two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaints filed in 2002 and 2005 charging the fire department with discriminatory hiring practices. Only 7.4 percent of New York City firefighters are Black or Latino, which means the city has the least diverse fire department of any major city in the US.
Dana Lossia, a lawyer for the Vulcan Society told the New York Times, "I think this has the potential to very quickly change the demographics of the Fire Department, which has been something that's been a long time coming," The Bloomberg administration faces more litigation to decide if the discrimination was intentional and will potentially have to pay millions in salary reparations.
Ricci v. DeStefano (see PDF), a similar case that originated in New Haven, CT, is a Title VII race case that has far reaching impact on race, sex, and ethnicity employment cases. The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the invalidation of promotion exam results was unconstitutional and that the tests were valid, despite the fact that no African-Americans ranked high enough to be promoted and the absolute adverse racial impact put in question its validity and indicated potential racial bias.
Media Resources: New York Times 7/22/09; Feminist News Wire 6/30/09; Center for Constitutional Rights 7/22/09
10/31/2014 Federal Judge Exempts Another Catholic University from Birth Control Coverage - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Ave Maria University, a Catholic university in Florida, does not have to comply with federal rules meant to ensure that covered employees can exercise their right to obtain birth control at no cost.
The Affordable Care Act requires all new health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives - such as the pill, emergency contraceptives, and IUDs - without charging co-pays, deductibles or co-insurance. . . .
10/31/2014 Women of Color in Tennessee Are United in Opposition to Amendment 1 - Just days before the general election in Tennessee, a coalition of community leaders, clergy, and advocates led a press conference encouraging women of color to vote no on Amendment 1, a dangerous and far-reaching measure on the state's ballot.
SisterReach, a grassroots organization focused on "empowering, organizing, and mobilizing women and girls in the community around their reproductive and sexual health to make informed decisions about themselves," organized the press conference "to call attention to the unique concerns Black and poor communities throughout Shelby County and across the state of Tennessee face on a daily basis" and to emphasize how the upcoming election "could further limit [black women's] reproductive, economic, political, and social autonomy."
"We assemble today to impress upon black women and women of color, many of whom are heads of households, to get out and vote," said SisterReacher Founder and CEO Cherisse Scott at the event.
SisterReach has been educating voters about the particularly dangerous impact of Amendment 1 on women of color. . . .
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .