you know there is one forgotten firefighter

in the new haven firefighter's lawsuit. i didn't know about lt. vargas until i just read this. either way or any way you look at it, he has one wicked tough road to follow. it appears he is following his heart and mind which is all fine by me (my position on the lawsuit, which of course i've stated before is, GO FOR IT. i would fight discrimination, racial or ANY kind with all i have. however, i also want those that deserve the job to GET the job. if a test is stilted one way, it certainly would be unfair and should be tossed out. if a test is fair and only a few pass, well then they should indeed get the rewards. i haven't seen the test, i don't know what it contains. )



For Hispanic Firefighter in New Haven Bias Suit, Awkward Position but Firm Resolve
By A. G. SULZBERGER
NEW HAVEN — The two dozen firefighters who packed into Humphrey’s East Restaurant were celebrating a coming marriage, drinking and jawboning in the boisterous style of large men with risky jobs, but Lt. Ben Vargas spent the evening trying to escape the tension surrounding his presence.

During a trip to the bathroom, he found himself facing another man. Without warning, the first punch landed. When Lieutenant Vargas awoke, bloodied and splayed on the grimy floor, he was taken to the hospital.

Lieutenant Vargas believes the attack, five years ago, was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retaliation for his having joined a racial discrimination lawsuit against the city over its tossing out of an exam for promotion that few minority firefighters passed. (No arrests were made in the attack, and the black firefighter vigorously denies having been involved.)..............

pic: Christopher Capozziello for The New York Times

Lt. Ben Vargas, with 17 white firefighters, won a case before the Supreme Court contending that New Haven had shown discrimination by throwing out a test for promotion.

here is my take on things

and i've said it countless times. i do NOT care what gender you are. i do NOT care what color you are. i do NOT care who you sleep with (a willing adult of course). i only care if you can DO THE JOB. you can be a 4'11" 1/4 mongolian, 1/4 black, 1/8 white, 1/8 hispanic, 1/4 native american lesbian who is a practicing jain. i don't care. if you're capable of saving me from a fire, you got the job baby! i don't think one group of people should be shunned at the expense of another group of people. if there is a way to make things equal, they should be equal.

i have not seen the firefighters test that is in question here. i have no idea if it is geared toward one race or not. i do know it seems like one group of people WERE in fact discriminated against here. those are the ones that scored well on the exam.

oh and in case you can't tell. i am IN NO WAY CONSERVATIVE and i sort of agree with the outcome here.

Court Rules For White New Haven Firefighters Over Promotions

Supreme Court Firefighter Opinion reverses a decision that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed

By EDMUND H. MAHONY The Hartford Courant
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in favor of 20 New Haven firefighters who claim in a reverse discrimination case that they were denied promotion for racial reasons.

The 5-4 opinion reverses a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

It could alter employment practices across the country, limiting the circumstances in which employers can be held liable for personnel decisions that touch upon race when there is no evidence of intentional discrimination.

Representatives of both the firefighters and the city are expected to address the decision this afternoon.

The suit, Ricci v DeStefano, turned on an apparent contradiction in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which concerns employment discrimination. The law flatly prohibits race-based discrimination. But it also requires employers to scrap tests that produce "disparate" results among test-takers of different races – unless the employer can prove the test is necessary.

It was apparent from questions by the justices during oral argument on April 22 that philosophical disagreement about racial preference in hiring magnified the divide between the court's conservative and liberal blocs........