Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Case Alleging Reverse Discrimination

Read the Full Transcript

• GWEN IFILL:

  Ray Suarez has our Supreme Court story.

• RAY SUAREZ:

  Today's case involves a group of white firefighters from Connecticut. They sued the city of New Haven for what they claim is reverse discrimination.

  Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal was at the court today and joins us once again.

  And, Marcia, this all started in 2003 with the city of New Haven fire department. They gave a promotion exam to find new captains and lieutenants. And what happened to land them in the Supreme Court six years later?

• MARCIA COYLE, National Law Journal:

  Well, when the results came back, the city discovered that no African-American firefighters and only one Hispanic firefighter qualified for the promotions.

  The city had — its charter had what it called the rule of three. It would fill the promotion vacancies with the three — from the three highest scores in each category.

  The results, according to the city's attorney at the time, reflected a seriously adverse impact on minority firefighters. And he warned the city that, to go forward, the city might face a lawsuit from the minority firefighters and potential liability under the nation's major job bias law, Title VII.

  The city turned the decision on certifying the results over to its civil service board. The board held five days of hearings on the tests. It heard from firefighters, the union, the testing company, other outside experts.

  It ended up voting 2-2 not to certify the results. The two who voted against certification said they did so because they felt the test had some serious flaws.

  The firefighters, the seventeen white and one Hispanic firefighter, filed suit against the city claiming two things. They said the city based its decision on race, and this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and another provision under Title VII, the intentional discrimination provision under Title VII known as disparate treatment on the basis of your race.

• RAY SUAREZ:

  And they lost in the lower courts, didn't they?

• MARCIA COYLE:

  Yes, they did, and it's the firefighters who brought the case that was heard today in the Supreme Court.

• RAY SUAREZ:

  So what did their attorney have to say before the judges?

• MARCIA COYLE:

  The firefighters' attorney essentially argued this was a decision rooted in race. Race-based decisions by the government require the most searching scrutiny under the Constitution.

  And the city's defense here, that it had a good-faith belief that, if it had gone forward with the promotions, it would have violated Title VII. Another provision, known as disparate impact, wasn't sufficient. The city needed to have a strong basis in evidence that it would have been liable under Title VII.