Comments on: Ricci ruling http://undeadastronauts.com/2009/06/29/ricci-ruling/ Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:18:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: flare http://undeadastronauts.com/2009/06/29/ricci-ruling/#comment-286 flare Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:19:39 +0000 http://undeadastronauts.com/?p=997#comment-286 just off the top of my head, I think you are absolutely right about the "business necessity" (a test being related to the job) is a counter to the disparate impact argument. Its interesting to note that if it doesnt have anything to do with jobs, then it gets much tougher to prove discrimination because you need to prove both discriminatory intent and disparate impact. But on a lighter note, I may come back to Huntsville soon. just off the top of my head, I think you are absolutely right about the “business necessity” (a test being related to the job) is a counter to the disparate impact argument.

Its interesting to note that if it doesnt have anything to do with jobs, then it gets much tougher to prove discrimination because you need to prove both discriminatory intent and disparate impact.

But on a lighter note, I may come back to Huntsville soon.

]]> By: 尸zed http://undeadastronauts.com/2009/06/29/ricci-ruling/#comment-283 尸zed Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:30:17 +0000 http://undeadastronauts.com/?p=997#comment-283 they didn't rule on whether the test is fair. they only ruled that the town couldn't throw the results out based only on a fear of litigation. the conservatives on the court make very narrow rulings, so they basically threw the case back into lower courts w/o ruling on the more interesting parts of the suit. they didn’t rule on whether the test is fair. they only ruled that the town couldn’t throw the results out based only on a fear of litigation. the conservatives on the court make very narrow rulings, so they basically threw the case back into lower courts w/o ruling on the more interesting parts of the suit.

]]> By: Munny http://undeadastronauts.com/2009/06/29/ricci-ruling/#comment-282 Munny Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:09:43 +0000 http://undeadastronauts.com/?p=997#comment-282 since the court ruled in favor of the white firefighters, doesn't that mean that the test is fair and doesn't have disparate impact? therefore the black firefighters don't have a case. since the court ruled in favor of the white firefighters, doesn’t that mean that the test is fair and doesn’t have disparate impact? therefore the black firefighters don’t have a case.

]]>