Court hears Conn. reverse discrimination arguments
WASHINGTON -- A Supreme Court majority appeared skeptical Wednesday of a Connecticut city's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion test after blacks scored disproportionately lower than whites.
Yet, it was not clear from the wide-ranging arguments what standards the court might impose on employers nationwide trying to navigate federal anti-bias laws.
Many of the justices' questions, in the case from New Haven that could affect a broad swath of employers nationwide, came down to how to draw a line between permissible and impermissible decisions that take account of race.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has emerged as the swing vote on such disputes, suggested by his questions that he thought the white firefighters who sued New Haven, alleging reverse discrimination, could have a valid claim.
Kennedy questioned whether New Haven should have had to make a "strong showing" that its test was "deficient" before voiding the results.
At the same time, Kennedy raised several larger questions about how judges should assess employers' efforts to ensure that their testing and other general policies do not exclude blacks or Hispanics.
No matter how the justices rule, it appeared likely the case would return to lower courts for further proceedings on the city's action.
The dispute traces to a decision by New Haven officials to cancel the results of a 2003 exam after no blacks and only two Hispanic applicants qualified for promotions. City officials said they feared they would be vulnerable to claims of bias from the minorities. They said they also believed the test failed to determine the best candidates for promotion.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act bars direct discrimination based on race or sex. It also restricts indirect bias that might arise from tests or other requirements that end up disqualifying disproportionate numbers of minorities or women from jobs.
The white firefighters contend the city's action constituted "overt racial balancing" that violated the 1964 law and the Constitution's equality guarantee. They argue that the city lacked grounds to believe it would be liable for indirect discrimination claims because of the test results, and rather was acting for political reasons.
