![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've found two lawsuits (so far) that are related to the fire department hiring and promotion practice in the face of CT's economic decline. CT's government employment fell 6% 2001-2003 and grew just 0.2% 2003-2005, just as an indication of the economic environment.
Mentioned in passing was the "fear of lawsuits if they did the promotions based on the test" but in fact, the city was already involved in a lawsuit because of promoting white fire fighters by not filling other civil service jobs. "the defendants’ use of ‘‘underfilling’’ as a means of funding promotions within the fire department. The plaintiffs alleged that underfilling is a discriminatory practice that ..." and "‘The additional lieutenants, who were all Caucasian of race and white of color, were promoted to their positions by virtue of the promotional practice of underfilling. . . . By allowing the improper, highly manipulative and subjective practice of underfilling to continue, the defendants have effectively so diluted the pool of eligible candidates for promotional positions within the [d]epartment that the plaintiffs’ opportunity to be promoted have been unfairly and adversely affected, resulting in their respective chances for promotional advancement being unfairly, substantially and discriminatorily diminished. Conversely, by virtue of the practice of underfilling, Caucasian, white firefighters of varying ranks, who are similarly situated to the plaintiffs have is proportionately benefitted with respect to promotions within the [d]epartment. . . ." See http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR270/270cr100.pdf
Also, a fire fighter job cut and a transfer to lower pay job caused a discrimination lawsuit. "Plaintiff John Brantley, an African-American firefighter employed by the City of New Haven, has sued the City and the Chief and Assistant Chief of the New Haven Fire Department. See Amended Compl. [doc. #17] ¶ 3-6. The complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988 and alleges that Brantley was fired in 2002 and, after a labor arbitration order, rehired in a lower-paid position in retaliation for public statements he made concerning racial diversity, in violation of his rights under the First Amendment." See http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/030305.JBA.Brantley.Sub.pdf
Still googling for more background to the actual budget, employment, and lawsuit context. Mulp ( talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Para. 2 says 118 took the New Haven 2003 "promotion exam." Para 4. says 77 "took the test." Is this a different year? I note P.2 says New Haven decided not to promote anyone. P.4 cites N.H. "scrapped" the test. DonL ( talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out good resource for background material:
Agradman appreciates civility/ makes occasional mistakes 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope THIS will make it easier to summarize and/or cite to the majority opinion. Agradman appreciates civility/ makes occasional mistakes 14:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Is the test freely available? (Or via a FOIA request). That would be relevant and interesting 69.181.146.251 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC).
I think in this opinion, it is important to note who was in the majority and minority, since Souter is likely to be replaced by Sotomayor. Since Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer were the dissenters, this will not represent a shift if and when Sotomayor comes in. -- rogerd ( talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This piece could use a section discussing the dissent position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 ( talk) 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has information about Ricci's prior lawsuits and disputes with authority. These points don't bear directly on the legal issues before the Court in Ricci, but, as the linked article points out, the broader presentation of the case in the media includes an inaccurate depiction of Ricci as a reluctant plaintiff. We should summarize this information for our article. JamesMLane t c 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Simple question: is there a neutral source which places Ricci's litigation against the city in its proper context--i.e., not a source trying to score points prior to the nomination hearings? I would be uncomfortable using the source given (Slate's Dahlia Lithwick). Mackensen (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Two items that appear to need addressing, but I don't have the information to fix them, maybe another editor does. The first is that this article discusses the Civil Service Board, but does not explain what role the CSB has. Is it a city department? A Connecticut state agency? A federal body? As a reader I am unsure what their role is and why they influenced this case. Secondly, the third bullet point in this section contains a quote that says "In my professional opinion, it's facially neutral". Is that supposed to say "racially", rather than "facially"? Hopefully someone can verify these two items, they left this reader wondering. Bigfitz79 ( talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ricci v. DeStefano. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've found two lawsuits (so far) that are related to the fire department hiring and promotion practice in the face of CT's economic decline. CT's government employment fell 6% 2001-2003 and grew just 0.2% 2003-2005, just as an indication of the economic environment.
Mentioned in passing was the "fear of lawsuits if they did the promotions based on the test" but in fact, the city was already involved in a lawsuit because of promoting white fire fighters by not filling other civil service jobs. "the defendants’ use of ‘‘underfilling’’ as a means of funding promotions within the fire department. The plaintiffs alleged that underfilling is a discriminatory practice that ..." and "‘The additional lieutenants, who were all Caucasian of race and white of color, were promoted to their positions by virtue of the promotional practice of underfilling. . . . By allowing the improper, highly manipulative and subjective practice of underfilling to continue, the defendants have effectively so diluted the pool of eligible candidates for promotional positions within the [d]epartment that the plaintiffs’ opportunity to be promoted have been unfairly and adversely affected, resulting in their respective chances for promotional advancement being unfairly, substantially and discriminatorily diminished. Conversely, by virtue of the practice of underfilling, Caucasian, white firefighters of varying ranks, who are similarly situated to the plaintiffs have is proportionately benefitted with respect to promotions within the [d]epartment. . . ." See http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR270/270cr100.pdf
Also, a fire fighter job cut and a transfer to lower pay job caused a discrimination lawsuit. "Plaintiff John Brantley, an African-American firefighter employed by the City of New Haven, has sued the City and the Chief and Assistant Chief of the New Haven Fire Department. See Amended Compl. [doc. #17] ¶ 3-6. The complaint is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988 and alleges that Brantley was fired in 2002 and, after a labor arbitration order, rehired in a lower-paid position in retaliation for public statements he made concerning racial diversity, in violation of his rights under the First Amendment." See http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/030305.JBA.Brantley.Sub.pdf
Still googling for more background to the actual budget, employment, and lawsuit context. Mulp ( talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Para. 2 says 118 took the New Haven 2003 "promotion exam." Para 4. says 77 "took the test." Is this a different year? I note P.2 says New Haven decided not to promote anyone. P.4 cites N.H. "scrapped" the test. DonL ( talk) 17:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out good resource for background material:
Agradman appreciates civility/ makes occasional mistakes 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I hope THIS will make it easier to summarize and/or cite to the majority opinion. Agradman appreciates civility/ makes occasional mistakes 14:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Is the test freely available? (Or via a FOIA request). That would be relevant and interesting 69.181.146.251 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC).
I think in this opinion, it is important to note who was in the majority and minority, since Souter is likely to be replaced by Sotomayor. Since Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer were the dissenters, this will not represent a shift if and when Sotomayor comes in. -- rogerd ( talk) 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This piece could use a section discussing the dissent position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 ( talk) 16:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has information about Ricci's prior lawsuits and disputes with authority. These points don't bear directly on the legal issues before the Court in Ricci, but, as the linked article points out, the broader presentation of the case in the media includes an inaccurate depiction of Ricci as a reluctant plaintiff. We should summarize this information for our article. JamesMLane t c 20:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Simple question: is there a neutral source which places Ricci's litigation against the city in its proper context--i.e., not a source trying to score points prior to the nomination hearings? I would be uncomfortable using the source given (Slate's Dahlia Lithwick). Mackensen (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Two items that appear to need addressing, but I don't have the information to fix them, maybe another editor does. The first is that this article discusses the Civil Service Board, but does not explain what role the CSB has. Is it a city department? A Connecticut state agency? A federal body? As a reader I am unsure what their role is and why they influenced this case. Secondly, the third bullet point in this section contains a quote that says "In my professional opinion, it's facially neutral". Is that supposed to say "racially", rather than "facially"? Hopefully someone can verify these two items, they left this reader wondering. Bigfitz79 ( talk) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ricci v. DeStefano. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)