What is the scenario for Frank Ricci tomorrow at Sotomayor's confirmation hearings?

[CTyankee]

I know he is going to be there at the invitation of the repuke senators, but what, if anything, is the precedent for having a litigant come before this kind of hearing to complain about a judge going against his case?

How is this kosher? Ricci's personal situation has been rehashed again and again. What is the fresh, new insight that this guy can offer? Also, can other Senators question Ricci?

:shrug:

[meegbear]

1. What time is he scheduled to appear?

[CTyankee]

2. Tomorrow. I can't find the time...nt

[el_bryanto]

3. Putting Ricci up there is a stunt to placate the base

Look, Sotomayor has little chance of being rejected by the senate - Republicans know this. So they are grandstanding for the base.

I suppose they hope that Sotomayor will say something like "Of course I slammed you down - I only care about Hispanics and Minorities. White people can jump off a bridge for all I care." But that's not very likely.

Bryant

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Maybe he'll be busy suing someone and forget to be there.

[imdjh]

5. It's a last chance to slap her.

One doesn't get to slap Supreme Court Justices once they are on the bench. This is a last chance to slap her.

The insight that Ricci brings is that New Haven jumped the gun, depriving men who earned promotion of a promotion not because of a lawsuit filed against the city for granting that promotion, but in anticipation of such a lawsuit and without such a lawsuit actually being litigated. In essence, the city played judge in a way they were not qualified to play. Sotomayor's court repeated this error, making it their own error.

It's also only one of two things the Republicans have on her, so they are working it. But what keeps it alive is the contemptuous and hypocritical people who despite the USSC ruling in the case, still arrogantly dismiss Ricci as a disgruntled white man who didn't have his privilege fulfilled when in fact he was one of several people of different ethnicities who were deprived a promotion because some other people didn't score well enough on a test which was crafted to remove bias and personality from the process.

[CTyankee]

6. Let me speak as a New Haven resident, who could be directly affected by

actual promotions in our fire department.

As a homeowner and resident of NH, I want the BEST qualified people in charge of my city's FD. Where do you get the idea that the test that the city gave was indicative of who was best qualified for promotion?

The City should have used a test that better assessed the qualities I want as a manager of firefighters that would come to my house in case of a fire. Such a test, now being used by many municipalities that are similar to New Haven, involves simulation and actual past performance reviews in order to find command presence, wisdom and judgment under stress, ability to lead and make wise decisions. I don't give a damn about how well the testee can memorize data and basically regurgitate it on a pencil and paper test. Esp. one that asks whether it is better to park a fire truck facing uptown or downtown. You do realize, don't you, that New Haven doesn't even HAVE an uptown or downtown orientation? So much for the relevance of your precious written test...

So I will thank you not to lecture ME on what I need in the command structure of a Fire Department that could be in a position to save my life...

[imdjh]

10. It isn't about you.

As a homeowner and resident of NH, I want the BEST qualified people in charge of my city's FD.

As you should.

Where do you get the idea that the test that the city gave was indicative of who was best qualified for promotion?

The city obviously thought that it was when they gave it, but they misunderstood disparate impact and were trying to cover their ass against an anticipated lawsuit. In doing so, they discriminated against those who earned promotion (through the city's own process) on the basis of their race.

That's what happened and that's what the case was about.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1428.pdf

[CTyankee]

12. And I will also thank you not to assume that I have no knowledge of what the

city of New Haven did and did not do. IMO the City and Mayor DeStefano was direlict in their duty to give a valid test, which they did not do (and yes I know why). A valid test, such as the one that Bridgeport CT gives, is not only a valid assessment of a test taker for promotion w/in the FD, it has typically yielded racially balanced results. I believe my city would have been well served and affirmative action unscathed if it had used such a test in the first place. Mr. Ricci, who is no saint, may or may not have qualified. Given his predeliction to litigate, I can only speculate on his temperament when things don't go his way...

As for the results of Ricci, SCOTUS voted 5-4 in favor of the white firefighters, so the question of disparate impact was a point of disagreement. It was not a 9-0 decision.

[imdjh]

13. Well it's good to be on the receiving end of thanks.

IMO the City and Mayor DeStefano was direlict in their duty to give a valid test

But you wouldn't have that opinion if the test had produced results you like.

A valid test, such as the one that Bridgeport CT gives, is not only a valid assessment of a test taker for promotion w/in the FD, it has typically yielded racially balanced results.

Yielding racially balanced results is not a measure of the validity of the test. Moreover, we're talking about very small samples in these city departments.

Can I assume that you also consider the admissions tests to California universities to be poor measures or outright racist because they have had racially disproportionate results?

With the enactment of California's Proposition 209 in 1996, outlawing racial discrimination in college admissions, Asian enrollment at UC campuses has skyrocketed. UC Berkeley student body is 42 percent Asian students; UC Irvine 55 percent; UC Riverside 43 percent; and UCLA 38 percent. Asian student enrollment on all nine UC campuses is over 40 percent. That's in a state where the Asian population is about 13 percent.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30393117/
Asian-Americans blast UC admissions policy
They say new standards are unfair, will reduce their numbers on campus

[CTyankee]

14. I have not studied the issue at UC and until I do, I can't comment.

I can say that I have studied diversity in the workplace, both in my own former workplace and in academia (in a graduate level course). There seems to be some strange idea that reaching diversity is a zero sum game: either diversity or being "qualified" wins. This is not the case. It is only elevating the status quo to paradigm. Just as diversity is necessary and beneficial in the natural world, so it is in our artificial world of work. The white male and his rules is the model, anything else is "suspect" at best and "undesirable" at worst. We have only to look at the questioning of Judge Sotomayor by the Southern white male Senators to see this in play even as we are exchanging posts.

As for the test that I suggest is the better one that New Haven could have, but did not, use, my argument is that it is better because it tests with more validity those attributes which we would want in an FD leader. The fact that it DOES yield racial balance proportional to its takers suggests to me that it truly tests merit, which the memorization test does not (in addition to not yielding racial balance). Officers in other cities' FDs have commented on how outdated and unproductive New Haven's test structure was, both from the point of view of validity AND (not instead of) the cause of diversity.

Why has diversity as a benefit been so vilified? I think it is because it threatens a status quo that people fight like hell to maintain for themselves, reserving their "right" to a Fire Department slot or in some other jobs. These are "our" jobs, we've had our fiefdom for a long time and we're not giving it up. Who are these people coming onto our "turf" just because they more accurately reflect the makeup of our city? These are good questions, along with such "deals" as why the mayor of NH enshrined the memorization test as an agreement with the firefighters union (and there is a long history of FDs and PDs having such "agreements" that have effectively kept minorities out of advancement slots).

[theothersnippywshrub]

7. Republicans are hoping that Frank the Plaintiff will be this year's Joe the Plumber.

Ricci appears to be a professional plaintiff who targets fire departments.

. . . .

Ricci is invariably painted as a reluctant standard-bearer; a hardworking man driven to litigation only when his dreams of promotion were shattered by a system that persecutes white men. This is the narrative we will hear next week, but it somewhat oversimplifies Ricci's actual employment story. For instance, it's not precisely true, as this one account would have it, that Frank Ricci "never once special treatment for his dyslexia challenge." In point of fact, Ricci sued over it.

According to local newspapers, Ricci filed his first lawsuit against the city of New Haven in 1995, at the ripe old age of 20, for failing to hire him as a firefighter. That January, the Hartford Chronicle reported that Ricci sued, saying "he was not hired because he is dyslexic." The complaint in that suit, filed in federal court, alleged that the city's failure to hire Ricci because of his dyslexia violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frank Ricci was one of 795 candidates interviewed for 40 jobs. According to his complaint, the reason he was not hired was that he disclosed his dyslexia in an interview. That case was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees.

In 1998, Ricci was talking about filing lawsuits again, this time over a dispute with his new employer, Middletown's South Fire District—which had hired him in August of 1997. According to a Hartford Courant report of Aug. 11, 1998, Ricci was dismissed from the Middletown fire department after only eight months. He promptly appealed his dismissal, claiming that fire officials had retaliated against him for conducting an investigation into the department's response to a controversial fire. A story in the Hartford Courant dated Aug. 9, 1997, has Ricci vowing "to pursue this to the fullest extent of the law."

In August of 1998, a state Department of Labor investigation cleared Chief Wayne S. Bartolotta of any wrongdoing in the firing. The Aug. 3, 1998, letter from the state Department of Labor indicated that the case was closed with a finding of no violation. "After a thorough investigation, it was determined that the South Fire District did not discriminate against Mr. Ricci." Ricci's response? According to the Courant, Ricci contended "Their decision was political, it has nothing to do with who was right and who was wrong." He told the paper he would "pursue the matter in civil court."

http://www.slate.com/id/2222087/

[Hepburn]

8. My guess: A lot of whining....

...because the standard is what is good for all white males ~~ in his opinion.

:shrug:

[spanone]

9. they have nothing so they are going to try to embarass her.

[asjr]

11. Nothing about a Republican is kosher.