Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
New Haven Firefighters Lawsuit; Ricci vs. DeStefano
This was a case about racial discrimination employment practices in the United States. The decision by the Supreme Court was received with a lot of contention. The suit was filed by seventeen White and one Hispanic firefighter against the New Haven Connecticut’s fire department (Sulzberger, 2009). The plaintiff in the case relied on the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to sue the company. In the case, they argued that they had passed the promotion test, but were denied promotions. The respondent argued that since none of the black firefighters had passed the test, it was only fair to cancel the result to avoid a possible suit from the blacks. The blacks are a protected minority in the US Civil Rights Law. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff citing lack of strong evidence.
Was there any discrimination?
There was no discrimination in the ruling by the Supreme Court. New Haven had established its own policies on employee promotion. These policies are a clear indicator that promotions are strictly on merit. This is in accordance with the company’s objectives of service delivery. Also, all employees are informed that promotions are on the basis of passing the promotion test. Under the same conditions, with the same exam, the test is the best assessment of the employees. Additionally, the company has allowed all its workers from all races to attempt the test. It follows therefore that the results of the test have catered for discrimination based on race. The best way the company would have approached the issue is to motivate the black firefighters so that they pass the test.
Secondly, an act of discrimination does not occur because New Haven cites the failure of the protected minority to justify its actions. Racial discrimination is defined as denying a qualified individual from obtaining something based on his race. In Ricci vs. DeStefano case, the black firefighters have not been denied promotions on the grounds of their race, but because they failed. This is compounded by the fact that all employees understand the requirements for promotions. In reality, their argument is based on a race-based verdict. In fact, it would be discrimination based on race if the White and Hispanic workers lost the suit. The condition for a promotion according to the city is to sit for the exam and obtain the set cutoff mark. There is no point where the requirement mentions the individual’s race. Since the employees passed the test, it is only right and fair to give them what they deserve.
How would you have ruled if you were the judge?
In the position as a judge I would rule in favor of the plaintiff. The city based its decision on Title VII of the Civil Rights act. However, the act states that no individual should face workplace discrimination based on race (Sulzberger, 2009). Therefore, denying any person a chance to be promoted violates the provisions of the act. The reason I support the promotion of the employees is that the test was designed by the city. In the design, measures were placed to ensure an inclusive participation by workers from all races. At this point the company has passed the provisions of the act. What remains is for the test to select the best among the employees. It would amount to discrimination if the successful workers were denied the promotion. This would ignore the company’s policy and hard work by the workers.
Sutton v. United Airlines
This was a suit to the US Supreme Court filed by twin sisters. The respondent in the suit was the United Airlines. The plaintiff raised the issue after they were denied the position as the airlines pilots. The two twin sisters were qualified pilots, but suffered from severe myopia. The airline required that people with a myopic disability to have an uncorrected vision of at least 20/100 (Hamilton, 2003). In the case of the twin sisters, they had an uncorrected vision greater than the set limit. The case was filed based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the act, any acts amounts to discrimination if that person is denied a chance based on the person’s condition when that person uses corrective measures. On the contrary, the twin sisters had a clear vision when they wore glasses. The court ruled that the twin sisters were not protected by the Americans with Disability because they had a clear vision when using the glasses. The court argued that an outcome of a corrective measure has a bearing to determine whether a person is protected by the ADA (Hamilton, 2003).
Was there any discrimination?
The decision by the Supreme Court was discriminatory. The Americans with Disability Act states that a person should not be discriminated if his disability is not severe when using a corrective measure. In the case of the twin sisters, they had a clear vision when using glasses. Since they were denied a chance to be employed as pilots then the provisions of the Act were violated. The argument by the plaintiff is within the provisions of the act because both had a clear perception when using glasses. Additionally, the Supreme Court based its ruling on the effects of the correction measures. This is discrimination. The twin sisters had a clear vision when using glasses, at this point they are not classified as people with disability. However, they would perform their duties while wearing glasses. As such, they would deliver a correct anticipation in their calculation because they had a clear perception. Therefore, a real analysis of the situation shows that they were discriminated if the effects of the corrective measure were to be taken into account.
Secondly, people respond differently to medications. The occurrence of side-effects after a medication is a generalization that is not constant. It varies from one individual to another. In the case of the twin sisters, the side-effects were positive. Alternatively, the effects of a medication are either positive or negative. Both outcomes should be treated in the same manner. In the case, they were disqualified because the effects were positive. This is discrimination.
How would you have ruled if you were the judge?
In the position as the judge I would rule that the twin sisters are covered by the Americans with Disability Act. The first reason is that the plaintiff had clear visualization if they used glasses. At this point they qualify for the ADA because of the condition of the corrective measure. Secondly, the side-effect of the corrective measure is positive. Therefore, their work as pilots would not be comprised because they have a clear vision when using glasses. Finally, the uncorrected vision had no basis in the case. The two sisters had a clear vision when using glasses. This is much better than the requirement of at least 20/100 (Hamilton, 2003)
References
Hamilton, K. (2003).Backlash Against the ADA: Reinterpreting Disability Rights. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Web.
Sulzberger, A. (2009). Bias Suit a Test of Resolve for Hispanic Man. The New York Times, p. 21. Web.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.