Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

May-24-10

Supreme Court Rules that Chicago Firefighter Discrimination Suit can Continue

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that 6,000 black applicants to the Chicago fire department can proceed with their discrimination lawsuit even though their complaint was filed more than 300 days after the incident. The group sued the city of Chicago under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that "the test had a disparate impact on black applicants and was not a valid test of firefighting aptitude." Under Title VII, the complaint needed to be filed no more than 300 days after the applicants were informed of their test scores.

The Supreme Court ruling (see PDF) indicated that the group could sue on the basis of discrimination under Title VII for 300 days after each instance of discrimination.

In the current case, the city of Chicago gave a written examination to all applicants to the fire department in 1995. According to UPI, the city decided in January 1996 that they would only consider applicants in the "well-qualified" group, those who scored between 89 and 100 points on the test. Those scoring between 65 and 88 were considered "qualified," but were kept on a list and rarely considered for positions. The plaintiffs' suit claimed that this methodology had a "disparate impact" on black and minority applicants because the 89 point cutoff excluded a large percentage of minority applicants.

According to Chicago Breaking News, District Judge Joan Gottschall ruled in 2005 that the use of the cut-off score was not justified by the city and thus deemed the test illegal. Later, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the applicants had waited too long to file suit, which led to the Supreme Court Appeal.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who authored the opinion, wrote "The City and its amici warn that our reading will result in a host of practical problems for employers and employees alike. Employers may face new disparate-impact suits for practices they have used regularly for years. Evidence essential to their business-necessity defenses might be unavailable (or in the case of witnesses' memories, unreliable) by the time the later suits are brought. And affected employees and prospective employees may not even know they have claims if they are unaware the employer is still applying the disputed practice. Truth to tell, however, both readings of the statute produce puzzling results. Under the City's reading, if an employer adopts an unlawful practice and no timely charge is brought, it can continue using the practice indefinitely, with impunity, despite ongoing disparate impact."

Media Resources: Supreme Court Ruling 5/24/10; UPI 4/24/10; Chicago Breaking News 5/24/10; Feminist Daily Newswire 2/25/10


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

5/22/2015 Senate Votes to Advance "Fast Tracking" of Dangerous Trade Agreement - The US Senate voted 62 to 38 yesterday to advance "fast track" trade legislation, just one week after Senate Democrats filibustered the controversial bill that would allow President Obama to force Congress to vote up-or-down on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The TPP is a far-reaching trade agreement that has faced staunch opposition from a broad coalition of labor, environmental, women's rights, and human rights groups. . . .
 
5/22/2015 New York Politicians, Advocates, and Activists Have Come Together to Protect Nail Salon Workers - Following a report by the New York Times on the exploitation of nail salon workers almost two weeks ago, New York state and city officials have partnered with advocates and volunteers to bring comprehensive educational programs and labor reforms to the 5,000 licensed salons in the state. Governor Andrew Cuomo (D), who ordered emergency measures last week in the wake of the report - including posting workers' rights information in salons in different languages, shutting down unlicensed salons, implementing new safety requirements, and creating an educational campaign aimed at employees and managers - has introduced a legislative package aimed at building upon those reforms and leading the way for long-term protection for nail salon workers. . . .
 
5/20/2015 New York Attorney General Moves to Expand Access to Contraceptives - New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman introduced the Comprehensive Contraception Coverage Act of 2015 last week to enhance the availability of contraception for New Yorkers. The bill codifies the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) in New York state law while strengthening and expanding many of its provisions. . . .