Well here are some facts.
The case went before the US Supreme Court to determine if the suit was filed in the proper amount of time. They concluded yes it was 9-0.
The case itself has been heard by four judges
Frank Easterbrook appointed by Reagan
Joan B. Gottschall appointed by Clinton
Richard Posner appointed by Reagan
William Joseph Bauer appointed by Ford
So that is 3 appointed by Republicans and 1 by a democrat.
I will highlight 3 issues
The first issue is, was the hiring done properly? The answer would be no
From May 1996 through November 2001, the City hired 11 groups of applicants from the well-qualified pool. Each time it chose at random from those who had scored 89 or better; it did not follow the common civil-service practice of hiring in rank order from a list.
2nd issue is, was the random selection really random? Well evidence would say no
We grant the possibility that, by chance, one batch or another would not create a disparate impact; indeed, it is possible that chance would produce a batch in which minority applicants predominated. But the City does not say that this occurred, and the law of large numbers is against it. Moreover, because the City hired from the well qualified pool until it was exhausted, the 10 properly challenged uses as a whole matched the pool and had the same disparate impact. If one or more of the 10 contested hiring classes departed materially from what a random draw would be expected to produce, the City should have pointed this out; it never did, so plaintiffs are entitled to the natural inference that all classes were alike.
3rd issue, did the city really believe a better fireman would come from a person who scored 89 over 64? The answer is no
But Chicago did not hire new firefighters in rank order. Everyone who scored 89 and up was treated alike; everyone who scored 65 to 88 was treated alike. The City conceded that this difference created a disparate impact. The district judge found that the cutoff at 89 was not justified, and the City did not appeal that conclusion.
Cliffs, the city did not use common civil service hiring practices. Because of the larger pool of whites in general, based on size, not brains, the cutoff at 89 they instituted knowingly created a disadvantage for blacks. The city presented no reason why they chose to use a cutoff score after the fact, I think its obvious. The numbers were large enough to a point where one of the hiring pools should have produced a mostly black or minority group, if it was just done by chance.
Everyone who qualified will get something out of this not just blacks.
The full opinion pdf, its only 9 pages. But it is clear after reading it what was going on here, crystal clear.
Link to decision.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/7U10EBMT.pdf
Facebook
Twitter