• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

I really should read my own blog.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

“Squeaker” McCarthy

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

Republicans are radicals, not conservatives.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

Black Jesus loves a paper trail.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

We still have time to mess this up!

fuckem (in honor of the late great efgoldman)

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

It’s time for the GOP to dust off that post-2012 autopsy, completely ignore it, and light the party on fire again.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Media / Veni, vidi, Ricci

Veni, vidi, Ricci

by DougJ|  July 12, 200912:45 pm| 70 Comments

This post is in: Media

FacebookTweetEmail

We’ve heard a lot from the Village about what an extreme decision Sotomayor made in Ricci v. DeStefano, how it proves she’s too much of a hot-blooded Latina victimologist, and so on. It seems worth noting that Ricci had a job as firefighter in the first place because of a suit he filed. From 1995 (via TPM):

Frank Ricci charges in the lawsuit that the city violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities.

Ricci, a Wallingford native who now lives in Maryland, was one of 795 candidates who were interviewed for 40 openings. Ricci told interviewers that he has a learning disability, the lawsuit says.

Fire commissioners have said that although Ricci was qualified, many others also were qualified because they passed the Civil Service examination.

Then in 2002:

“In a confidential settlement, struck two years later, Mr. Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney’s fees.”

This isn’t meant to demonize Ricci; I support the right to litigate. But if he’d been black and sued twice to get a job, he’d certainly be called an uppity Negro (if not perhaps with those exact words but close enough) by the media powers that be.

I don’t know enough about the law to comment on either case, but Ricci sure is an unlikely foot soldier in the Global War Against Affirmative Action.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Cause For Optimism On Torture Accountability?
Next Post: Watch out, Kristols, Podhoretzes, and Kagans! »

Reader Interactions

70Comments

  1. 1.

    El Cid

    July 12, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    If Ricci had been black and sued for discrimination against his technically inferior exam performance based on dyslexia, right wing talk radio would be filled with jokes about how there was no dyslexia and how it was really just (fill in racist generalizations about black and colored people being dumb, i.e., “Ebonics” or whatever).

    We know this, because this is what they already have said about Sonia Sotomayor, who’s objectively Supremely qualified.

  2. 2.

    HRA

    July 12, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    It looks like the big mouths who jumped on this case against Judge Sotomayor had not done their homework. Sad to admit I am not at all surprised as well. Now the burning question in my mind is do I trust their judgment on anything else they spew out into the public forum over the present issues facing us.

  3. 3.

    JK

    July 12, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    The Democrats need to tread very lightly around Ricci because the MSM has already turned him into a martyr.

  4. 4.

    Dennis-SGMM

    July 12, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    The fact that Frank the Fireman filed an anti-discrimination lawsuit to get his job will no more deter Republicans than the fact that Joe the Plumber hadn’t paid his taxes. Anyone who raises the ironic aspect of Frank’s situation will be castigated for picking on him and for destroying his family also. The R’s have this down to a science now.

  5. 5.

    gopher2b

    July 12, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    The problem with Sotomayor’s (non)-decision is not that it was extreme, it is that she didn’t make one. Her and two other judges punted and they likely did so for political and personal reasons. Perhaps people from village are saying it was extreme but they are as uninformed as you apparently are on the topic.

    With regard to Ricci’s prior litigation, what is your point exactly? Ricci is clearly someone who earned and deserved to a promotion (he did so DESPITE a learning disability) and would have received it if he was black or hispanic. Yet, in your mind, the fact that he sued under the American with Disabilities Act to get the job in the first place undercuts the conservatives position affirmative action. Yeah, that makes complete sense.

    (that bit about if it had been a black person who sued twice he would be referred to as an uppity negro is perhaps the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read on here…seriously).

  6. 6.

    DougJ

    July 12, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    that bit about if it had been a black person who sued twice he would be referred to as an uppity negro is perhaps the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read on her…seriously

    It’s true, though.

    I don’t even know that I disagree with either decision and I certainly wish Ricci no ill will. But Ricci’s first suit is exactly the kind of thing conservatives mock.

  7. 7.

    KCinDC

    July 12, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    It is true, DougJ, but even taking race out of the situation, if Ricci were in opposition to a Republican nominee, the Republicans would be pushing the idea that dyslexia and other learning disabilities are bogus and just excuses for lazy people to avoid doing the work required to advance in our society.

  8. 8.

    Llelldorin

    July 12, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    Her and two other judges punted and they likely did so for political and personal reasons.

    She punted because to do otherwise would have required going against precedent, and “legislating from the bench,” and all those other catch phrases of which conservatives are so enamored.

    Honestly, what is the conservative judicial philosophy these days? Other than empathy (with whites over nonwhites and, if only whites are involved, with wealth over poverty) it’s not clear that any such philosophy still exists. How do you justify alternately accusing judges of legislating from the bench and angrily demanding that they do just that?

  9. 9.

    gex

    July 12, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    The thing to remember is that IOKIYAR is actually an update and a refinement of the IOKIYAW rule.

  10. 10.

    kth

    July 12, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    He was basically making the exact same argument that the black firefighters were making: that the test, while not discriminatory on its face, would have a disparate impact on applicants with reading disabilities.

    Hilzoy’s right, though: don’t even bother going there. The object is not just to get Sotomayor confirmed, but to run up the score enough so that Republicans who vote against Obama’s nominees in the future are portrayed as recalcitrant, “stalwart”. The object is manifestly not some goddam “national conversation” on civil rights and affirmative action.

  11. 11.

    feebog

    July 12, 2009 at 1:15 pm

    @gopher2b- We don’t really know, at least based on these reports, the extent of Ricci’s disability, or even that he really has a learning disability. Is he claiming to be ADD? ADHD? Dyslexic? So to say he deserved the promotion, simply based on what is in the news reports is pretty simple thinking.

    Disclaimer: I am a Civil Service hearing officer for a large county in California. I have heard promotion complaints. some have merit, some do not. I frankly don’t have enough information to determine if the test in question was discriminatory or not, and neither do you.

    The point is that the City was afraid they would be sued by minority firefighters if they promoted based on the test. The District and Circuit Courts held that thay was a legitmate basis for invalidating the test, based on several precedent cases. The Supreme Court took the activist position, overturning precedent, that there had to be more than just a belief that the City would be sued.

  12. 12.

    SGEW

    July 12, 2009 at 1:16 pm

    I’m with hilzoy:

    Apparently, Frank Ricci has filed a number of lawsuits in his career. So what? Is that in any way relevant to Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation? No. If it turned out that Frank Ricci was the Antichrist, would that mean that she was necessarily right to rule against him? No; no more than his being the Archangel Gabriel would mean that she ought to have ruled in his favor.
    ..
    If his past has no relevance to her confirmation, there is no reason whatsoever to bring it up. And if there’s no reason to bring it up, then bringing it up is just gratuitous trashing.
    ..
    Second, it’s stupid. Judge Sotomayor has perfectly good credentials. She doesn’t need this. It’s pointless ugliness.
    ..
    So just stop.

    [eta: @kth: Agreeing with hilzoy is rightfully popular]

  13. 13.

    Davis X. Machina

    July 12, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    He’s the next Joe the Plumber.

    After his riveting testimony in front of the Judiciary Committee, expect him to make the round of the talk shows. By Christmas he’ll be doing grip-and-grins with down-ticket GOP candidates.

  14. 14.

    Hunter Gathers

    July 12, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    @gex: Actually, i’m starting to think the former is slowly but surely being replaced with the latter.

  15. 15.

    Brachiator

    July 12, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    This isn’t meant to demonize Ricci; I support the right to litigate.

    But you are demonizing him. He may not be the perfect litigant, but he doesn’t have to be. It also sounds like he used the law to his benefit, exactly as anyone should.

    And to the extent that this is turning into Ricci vs Sotomayor, people are falling into the Republican’s trap.

    Apparently, Ricci is going to appear at the hearings. I do not recall a case in the past in which a party to a lawsuit appeared at the confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Justice. The lie is that Sotomayor was the only judge ever to rule on the Ricci case, and her rulings were so singularly prejudicial against a white (ding) male (ding) firefighter (ding) HERO (ding ding ding ding ding) that her confirmation would shake the very foundations of the Republic.

    And Rush and his cohorts may push hard on the lie that the Supreme Court decision in favor of Ricci was unanimous.

    I wonder if the Democrats will be smart enough to counter this. But the least effective way to deal with this is by wasting time digging into Ricci’s background. It is not really about him, but the law.

    But if he’d been black and sued twice to get a job, he’d certainly be called an uppity Negro (if not perhaps with those exact words but close enough) by the media powers that be.

    This is what I call an Idiot Hypothetical. It’s kinda like saying, “I bet that if the Earth were made of green cheese, the mice would have eaten it by now.” I understand the point that you are making, but it’s lazy because it doesn’t to any actual example to make the point.

    And you can’t honestly say that your statement is “true” because it is by definition conjectural. I know that these kinds of statements are part of the InterTubes tradition, but they really should be used rarely, if they must be used at all.

  16. 16.

    Hunter Gathers

    July 12, 2009 at 1:28 pm

    @Llelldorin:

    Honestly, what is the conservative judicial philosophy these days?

    To side with the Strong over the Weak. The John Roberts Doctrine.

  17. 17.

    lotus

    July 12, 2009 at 1:28 pm

    Well, though I agree with Hilzoy about People for the American Way’s going after Ricci, the case-history Dahlia Lithwick compiles is pretty hard to ignore:

    … Ultimately, there are two ways to frame Frank Ricci’s penchant for filing employment discrimination complaints: Perhaps he was repeatedly victimized by a cruel cadre of employers, first for his dyslexia, then again for his role as a whistle-blower, and then a third time for just being white. If that is so, we should all be deeply grateful for the robust civil rights laws that protect Americans from unfair discrimination in the workplace. I look forward to hearing Republican Sen. John Cornyn’s version of that speech next week.
    The other way to look at Frank Ricci is as a serial plaintiff—one who reacts to professional slights and setbacks by filing suit, threatening to file suit, and more or less complaining his way up the chain of command. That’s not the typical GOP heartthrob, but I look forward to hearing Sen. Cornyn’s version of that speech next week as well.
    When Frank Ricci testifies against Judge Sotomayor, it will be worth recalling that under any other set of facts he would have looked to his GOP sponsors like the kind of unscrupulous professional litigant Rush Limbaugh lives to savage. Is America’s conservative movement really ready for an anti-affirmative action hero who has repeatedly relied on the government to intervene on his behalf to win him—and help him keep—a government job?

    I sure want to see not PAW pre-hearing but Whitehouse/Franken/other Senators who hear his testimony mashing that button hard.

  18. 18.

    Bruce Webb

    July 12, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    Well I posted a strong reply to Hilzoy.

    It is not the fact that Ricci litigated to get his job, nor even that he turned out to be a serial litigator, it is the fact that he freely decided to turn himself into a professional victim fighting out every battle from the pages of the Hartford Courant. Dahlia Lithwick has the details:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2222087/
    “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.”

    Ricci is a WATB that didn’t seem to mind running to the newspaper even prior to actually filing his various threatened law suits. It is no wonder of all the ‘discriminated against’ firefighters that he managed to come to the front of the media line, he seems to have the number of every city reporter at the Courant on speed dial. Note particularly the victimology in “Their decision was political, it has nothing to do with who was right and who was wrong”. Poor baby.

    As I put it on Open Left, if the ‘complexion’ of this case had been a little different Faux would be calling this guy a “Professional Race Hustling Dyslexic Pimp”

  19. 19.

    gopher2b

    July 12, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    @DougJ:

    It’s true, though.

    No it’s not. If an african american had scored better than his white peers and was refused a job because he wasn’t white, no one would be crying foul right now (at least not publicly). Nor would anyone be calling him names if he had a legitimate disability in his first lawsuit. In fact, if these two things happened, everyone would be screaming (rightfully) WTF is going on in Connecticut.

  20. 20.

    kth

    July 12, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    Bruce, if there were any justice in the world, Sotomayor’s opponents would never live down the contradictions that Lithwick highlights. But there is, in fact, no justice in the world, as we both already knew.

    If you want this Ricci character to be the next Joe the Plumber, and to be ubiquitous on Fox News and haranguing the proudly ignorant at “tea parties”, making him sweat with thorny and inconvenient questions from smarty-pants Ivy League-educated committee counsel is the surest way to bring it about.

  21. 21.

    lotus

    July 12, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    What’s so scary about another Joe the Plumber?

  22. 22.

    kth

    July 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    gopher, Ricci’s claim of discrimination was based, not on someone saying “we’re not going to promote you because you are dyslexic”, but because he claimed that the civil service exam had a disparate impact on people with reading disorders. It is precisely the same claim that the black firefighters were making in the SCOTUS case that bears his name.

  23. 23.

    SGEW

    July 12, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    @lotus: It’s not scary. It’s sad.

  24. 24.

    trollhattan

    July 12, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Is there any likely scenario that could prevent her confirmation? It seems to me the Dems can take the high road, let the Repubs take their pathetic whacks and resulting backlash, and get her seated w/o too much drama. From what I can tell about her she’s simply not going to wilt under the spotlight.

    The arguments against her seem like so much weak tea I can’t imagine her not on the court this fall. Too naive?

  25. 25.

    Dennis-SGMM

    July 12, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Poor Ricci, when he was denied that first job he must have questioned whether there really is a dog.

  26. 26.

    superdestroyer

    July 12, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    There were 18 other plantiffs involved in the lawsuit. I doubt if all of them have sued before but all of them won.

    Does the left really want the courts to look at previous litigation when making decisions?

  27. 27.

    4jkb4ia

    July 12, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    Frank Ricci’s pattern of filing lawsuits is irrelevant to any judicial philosophy Judge Sotomayor may have. Frank Ricci’s pattern of filing lawsuits is also irrelevant to any judicial integrity Judge Sotomayor may have unless she knew about it beforehand. Confirmation hearings are to find out the first two things. OTOH the Democrats should ask him some questions so that he does not get to grandstand under Republican questioning the whole time he is up there.

  28. 28.

    Paul L.

    July 12, 2009 at 1:46 pm

    Change you can believe in.
    The same people who were outraged by the investigation of Graham Frost by conservatives will now turn over every rock on Ricci’s past and try to spread ever rumor they find.

  29. 29.

    Aqualad08

    July 12, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    The Dems should eat him alive…the man doesn’t have a leg to stand on for bashing Sotomayor in light of her uphilding a precedent set by a previous SCOTUS ruling…it should be fun to watch…

  30. 30.

    4jkb4ia

    July 12, 2009 at 1:47 pm

    @trollhattan:

    I think that according to Kagro she has to win over one Republican on Judiciary. If she can do that she is through.

  31. 31.

    gopher2b

    July 12, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    @feebog:

    We don’t really know, at least based on these reports, the extent of Ricci’s disability, or even that he really has a learning disability. Is he claiming to be ADD? ADHD? Dyslexic? So to say he deserved the promotion, simply based on what is in the news reports is pretty simple thinking.

    I don’t even know where to began. First, he was denied the PROMOTION because he was white. He clearly did well on those tests. He alleged he was denied the JOB because of his learning disability (he passed and/or did well on the civil service exam). The city chose to settle so I have no idea whether his allegations of disability discrimination had merit.

    And, it is not simple thinking to assume his claim was legitimate to establish the second point which is that his (alleged) disability has nothing to do with the fact he was racially discriminated against. In fact, its simple thinking to stand there with your thumb up your ass saying “i dunno all the facts so i can’t make no decisions about this.”

  32. 32.

    TR

    July 12, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    Her and two other judges punted and they likely did so for political and personal reasons.

    Oh, did her punt? Her punt real good.

    She and the other judges ruled the way they did because of the principle of stare decisis — you know, that thing that flaming liberals like Scalia won’t shut up about, about how judges in the lower courts are supposed to apply precedent strictly. She did.

    If she hadn’t punted — if she’d bucked the standing law and applied her own opinion over what the precedents held — then she would have been a “judicial activist.”

  33. 33.

    Demo Woman

    July 12, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    @kth: Fox TV will have him on all week anyway.
    Sotomayor followed the law and the Supreme Court overturned it. They have been diluting the laws from the civil rights era all along.

  34. 34.

    Zifnab25

    July 12, 2009 at 1:53 pm

    The Democrats could have gone balls-to-the-wall like this with Alito and Roberts, and they could have ended up with a chronically hateful justice like Thomas, or another roving coulda-been like Bork.

    I don’t see Ricci saying anything to Congress that will change anyone’s minds. This is really just another opportunity for Republicans to further infuriate the Latina community.

    Let them make this as long and painful as possible.

  35. 35.

    someguy

    July 12, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    Well, this Ricci guy certainly has no credibility. He sounds like a real wingnut – a cry victim right winger.

    Just when you think the assholes can’t go any lower (remember the Baltimore family that lacked medical coverage?) they sink a little lower in who they target and who they put forward as spokespersons.

    So let’s Bork the whiny SOB, make him as radioactive as Joe the un-plumber or Sarah whatsername from Alaska and let’s move on to the Senate vote.

  36. 36.

    DougJ

    July 12, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    The same people who were outraged by the investigation of Graham Frost by conservatives will now turn over every rock on Ricci’s past and try to spread ever rumor they find.

    Rumor? The case was a matter of public record.

    Look, I agree about not trashing Frank Ricci. But (1) the ADA is just the kind of thing conservatives rail against and (2) the conservative and Village reaction to the second Ricci case has a strong racial element to it, IMHO.

  37. 37.

    gopher2b

    July 12, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    @kth:

    Wrong. He sued for disparate treatment, not impact. Two entirely different theories.

  38. 38.

    Dennis-SGMM

    July 12, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    This is really just another opportunity for Republicans to further infuriate the Latina community.

    Heh. Is there a minority whom they haven’t pissed off? Oh wait, they haven’t gone after the Hmong – yet.

  39. 39.

    DougJ

    July 12, 2009 at 1:57 pm

    And, it is not simple thinking to assume his claim was legitimate to establish the second point which is that his (alleged) disability has nothing to do with the fact he was racially discriminated against.

    I can’t quite parse this. What are you trying to say here?

  40. 40.

    Andy

    July 12, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    @gopher2b:

    Federal law recognizes two kinds of discriminatory practices — those that are discriminatory on their face, and those that, while not intentionally discriminatory, result in discriminatory outcomes. Ricci’s Supreme Court case fell under the latter category; the test for promotion wasn’t intended to be discriminatory, but the results left the city open to discrimination lawsuits nonetheless under that second standard. That’s why the city threw it out, which effectively denied Ricci his promotion. It really is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation.

    The folks who are trumpeting the Supremes’ narrow, five-to-four overturning of Judge Sotomayor’s ruling at the appeals court level are generally not mentioning the fact that, in doing so, the SC has changed the precedent to raise the standard for relief under that latter type of discrimination, effectively changing the rules that Sotomator’s curcuit court was working under. (Shorter version: the Supreme Court just made policy.)

    Oh, and five bucks says Ricci cries at the witness table.

  41. 41.

    gopher2b

    July 12, 2009 at 2:01 pm

    @TR:

    Congrats typo police. You must feel so good about yourself.

    Oh, right, did TR find a new wordy on the internety…..wut a good boy….wut a GOOOODDD BOYYYY. Idiot.

    Tell me, idiot, what case (or precedent) did the Supreme Court overturn Ricci? Waiting…..

    (before you look up legal terms on wikipedia you should think about getting a clue about what they mean).

  42. 42.

    A Mom Anon

    July 12, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    When has someone who filed a lawsuit ever been part of the process of becoming a Supreme Court Justice? What the hell does Ricci have to do with anything regarding this?

  43. 43.

    Ejoiner

    July 12, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    Can anyone point me to a link for a simple (read layman) breakdown of the case, the rulings and all that? Just so I have some idea of what is going on!

  44. 44.

    DougJ

    July 12, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    Tell me, idiot, what case (or precedent) did the Supreme Court overturn Ricci?

    Do you mean “on the basis of what case” did they overturn Ricci or “what precedent did they in effect overturn” in their ruling on Ricci?

    I’m not trying to be typo police. But some of what you are writing is difficult to parse.

  45. 45.

    gopher2b

    July 12, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    @Andy:

    Of course they made policy, what is your point?

    Ricci was not a purely disparate impact case. The case invovled the conflict between apparent disparate impact (against minorities) and the disparate treatment (of whites) and what to do about it.

  46. 46.

    kth

    July 12, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    @gopher2b: But what would have been the basis of his assertion of disparate treatment? The fourth graf of the TPM item mentioning the civil service exam was what I was going on.

    Obviously the case never went to trial, but it appears that he was claiming that reliance on the exam was discriminatory and insufficiently related to the duties of the job. And there is nothing on the (scant) record we have of these prior suits that points to Ricci alleging that a specific policy existed, nor that he had evidence that his disability was a determining factor in the decision not to hire him.

    Perhaps he hoped that discovery or testimoney would produce a smoking gun, but it’s hard to imagine his entire case depended on it. And without that, he would have had to claim that the hiring process, without specifically mentioning or considering dyslexia, nevertheless discriminated against dyslexics. IANAL, but I can’t see any difference between such a claim and the one made by the black firefighters.

  47. 47.

    Demo Woman

    July 12, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    @Ejoiner: If you follow the links that Bruce posted at 18, you can read som of the documents. Slate links to the NYTimes.

  48. 48.

    SiubhanDuinne

    July 12, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    @ Dennis-SGMM

    “questioned whether there really is a dog.”

    WTF . . . er . . . FTW

  49. 49.

    Davis X. Machina

    July 12, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    What the hell does Ricci have to do with anything regarding this?

    The GOP can’t govern, but they can tell stories. When you craft a story, you need a protagonist and an antagonist. Opposition to Sotomayor needs to have a human face, a spokesperson. You don’t see the CEO of Subway — you see Jared.

    They’re looking for this cause’s Jared. Ricci’ll do.

  50. 50.

    flounder

    July 12, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    I thought the original votes from the ADA Act in 1990 might be illuminating:
    Senate
    House
    Looks like Kit Bond might want to stay on the down low. On the House side, the most interesting names to me were Armey, Barton, and Burton.
    Here’s who I found from the House that voted against the ADA Amendment bill in 2008:
    Paul Broun (GA)
    John Capmbell (CA)
    John Doolittle (CA)
    John Duncan (TN)
    Jeff Flake (AZ)
    Scott Garrett (NJ)
    Louie Gohmert (TX)
    Jeb Hensarling (TX)
    Jack Kingston (GA)
    John Linder (GA)
    Kenny Marchant (TX)
    Ron Paul (TX)
    Ted Poe (TX)
    Tom Price (GA)
    Tom Tancredo (CO)
    Dave Weldon (FL)
    Lynn Westmoreland (GA)
    Maybe dems should add some loser like Tancredo to the witness list just to fuck with Republicans.

  51. 51.

    gopher2b

    July 12, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    @DougJ:

    Stare decisis means a respect for existing case law (or precedent). If the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision because of stare decisis then it follows that the Supreme Court overturned some precedent. It did not overturn any precedent or cases. It developed a new test for resolving a new conflict. A Circuit Court is free (and should) do the same thing. The 2nd Circuit chose not to do anything which I find highly odd.

  52. 52.

    gopher2b

    July 12, 2009 at 2:20 pm

    @kth:

    The complaint (if you follow the links you’ll find it) does not allege disparate impact. It alleges that he (1) passed the civil service exam, (2) told the interviewers he was dsylexic, (3) dsylexia (spl?) is a disability covered by the ADA, and (4) they refused to higher him because he is dsylexic.

    Unless he amended his complaint to allege the the test had a disparate impact on dsylexics (and I do not know why he would if he passed it) then the first case is not a disparate impact case.

  53. 53.

    GregB

    July 12, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Don’t you see. The white man is the Jew of liberal fascism and therefore they have a right to claim discrimination.

    Unlike those whiny Blacks who have been milking some trivial perceived injustices for decades.

    And as I have noted before, there will be the pre-planned Perry Mason moment when some rightwing dillhole like Linseed Graham throws a softball question about how Ricci was used and abused by the liberal fascist Black system and then the cameras will pan over his right shoulder to show Ricci’s wife blubbering at the injustice of it all.

    Propaganda win will ensue.

    -G

  54. 54.

    Phoebe

    July 12, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    What I never see anybody discussing in this case is the point that the dissent made – Ginsburg – that the very likely reason all the white people did so much better on the test is that they had access to the study materials, this particular book that had been ordered but was on backorder, so unavailable for months, except that people who had taken the test before already had this book, and were typically older relatives of the white applicants, and naturally gave their copies to their relatives.

    And the reason they were all white, these older book-havers, was that, until relatively recently, fire departments were flat-out racist in their hiring practices, so the black applicants could never have benefited from the nepotism advantage that this book shortage conferred.

    The idea that this test accurately diagnosed who was most qualified for a promotion is therefore suspect at best, and the majority opinion didn’t even get into the issue, or address the evidence for the hinkiness of this test – which, btw, went beyond the textbook shortage issue. That’s why they suck. They assumed the test was golden. I used to teach test prep. I know that tests are bullshit. If the Princeton Review can increase scores dramatically in six weeks, what, are we increasing your intelligence, your aptitude, by forty percent or whatever? No. It’s all about the particular test, and the student’s familiarity with said test.

  55. 55.

    Brachiator

    July 12, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    @4jkb4ia:

    Frank Ricci’s pattern of filing lawsuits is irrelevant to any judicial philosophy Judge Sotomayor may have. Frank Ricci’s pattern of filing lawsuits is also irrelevant to any judicial integrity Judge Sotomayor may have unless she knew about it beforehand.

    You’re right, and I hope the Democrats are not stupid enough to take the bait that the Republicans are laying out.

    OTOH the Democrats should ask him some questions so that he does not get to grandstand under Republican questioning the whole time he is up there.

    I wouldn’t spend much, if any, time questioning him at all. I might bring up the fact that Ricci made use of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and then go on to show how this law came into being precisely because a bi-partisan Congress ignored the narrow rants of conservatives and the business community. Further, the law would not have been brought about had not Congress empathized with the disabled (Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)).

    The compromise bill eventually became law in the summer of 1990 in an overwhelming bipartisan vote in both the House and Senate. One reason for the bill’s strong support was that many members of Congress had personal or family reasons for being concerned about disability issues. Other key figures in passage of the act were Attorney General Richard Thornburgh; Senator Robert Dole, a Republican from Kansas; and Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat from Massachusetts.

    For extra fun, they could point out how President George W. Bush signed into law The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in order to “give broader protections for disabled workers and ‘turn back the clock’ on court rulings which Congress deemed too restrictive.”

  56. 56.

    linda

    July 12, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    @HRA:

    i was wondering why tweety dropped this one so quickly. i’m guessing after his initial hissy fit segment bemoaning the poor sad state of white man exceptionalism, someone on his staff actually did some research that the gop-supplied talking points failed to include.

  57. 57.

    Andy

    July 12, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    gopher2b asked:
    Of course they made policy, what is your point?
    Nothing, except that Judge Sotomayor’s opponents jumped all over her observation — in the context of a law student’s question about where best to do a federal clerkship — that it was the appeals courts (as opposed to the original trial courts) that make policy — i.e., legal precedent. Those on the right who are gleefully trying to skewer her by citing the outcome in Ricci are forgetting that that ruling actually vindicates exactly what she said: appeals courts make policy.

  58. 58.

    A Mom Anon

    July 12, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    @Davis X. Machina:

    I get that,this is theater. What I mean is,since when does someone who filed a lawsuit get to be part of the confirmation process? Has this EVER happened before now? Since the Senate is supposed to be all about proceedure and rules and all that,how is this guy even allowed in the door?

  59. 59.

    Dennis-SGMM

    July 12, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    @A Mom Anon:

    Since the Senate is supposed to be all about proceedure and rules and all that,how is this guy even allowed in the door?

    Because the GOP is busy tuning up the violins to play the Ballad of Fireman Frank. They likely figure that taking this tack will distract everyone from their racism and misogyny.

  60. 60.

    JK

    July 12, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    Unless Sotomayor screws up big time or some bombshell allegation about her is unearthed, her confirmation is in the bag. I agree with what others have posted. The Democrats just need to walk on by with regard to Ricci. Going after him accomplishes absolutely nothing.

  61. 61.

    Brachiator

    July 12, 2009 at 2:52 pm

    @Phoebe:

    The idea that this test accurately diagnosed who was most qualified for a promotion is therefore suspect at best, and the majority opinion didn’t even get into the issue, or address the evidence for the hinkiness of this test.

    The appropriateness of the tests weren’t an issue in any earlier Court review or in the Supreme Court case (Ricci v. DeStefano).

  62. 62.

    kth

    July 12, 2009 at 3:13 pm

    @gopher2b: Ah, I see. I thought he had not passed the civil service exam the first go-round, at age 20. So he really didn’t have a basis at all for his discrimination claim, not individual, not statistical, just “I’m dyslexic” and “I didn’t get the job” were the only two facts he offered.

    Like DougJ, I’m all for people who think they’ve been victims of discrimination availing themselves of the courts, and at least making people in positions of power deny under oath that they considered improper criteria in making hiring decisions. But I imagine that Ricci’s current champions would take a dim view of his pettifogging, not just if he were black, but if his case were exactly the same, but had he not later filed a reverse discrimination suit that was heard on appeal by a Dem nominee to the Supreme Court.

  63. 63.

    Shaolin

    July 12, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    [/lurkmode]

    Why is Ricci’s past being brought out now?

    Because he lacks the intelligence to take his victory, shut his mouth and go home. He doesn’t get that the GOP are using him to make the case against Sotomayor, that he is the race card being played in a losing hand.

    Ricci got what he wanted. He has nothing to gain by trying to sabotage Sotomayor, but he’s going to take a swing at her anyway…and find himself put under the microscope.

  64. 64.

    Spot

    July 12, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    I don’t have the link at the moment, but some of the plaintiffs that Sotomayor ruled against were Hispanic.

  65. 65.

    Hob

    July 12, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    @gopher2b:

    First, he was denied the PROMOTION because he was white

    Bullshit. The Supreme Court ruled that the city inappropriately changed their decisions on promotions by discarding the test for everyone, based on race. They ruled that Ricci and the other plaintiffs were discriminated against. But Ricci wasn’t “denied the promotion,” as if there was a promotion there with his name on it that was then taken away because he was white. He was one of 18 plaintiffs who were competing for 10 positions — and no one got promoted as a result of that test.

  66. 66.

    Brachiator

    July 12, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    @Spot:

    I don’t have the link at the moment, but some of the plaintiffs that Sotomayor ruled against were Hispanic.

    There are references to this all over the place, including the Wikipedia article on the Supreme Court case (Ricci v. DeStefano)

    Ricci and sixteen other white test takers, plus one Hispanic, all of whom would have qualified for consideration for the promotions, sued the city [of New Haven].

    Lt. Ben Vargas, the Hispanic American petitioner, was attacked in a bar in 2004 and had to be hospitalized. He has stated that he believes the attack was done in retribution for bringing in the legal case.

    This again points out the stupidity of the GOP trying to frame the confirmation hearings as The Last Competent White Man in America vs The Angry Latina.

    As always, this reductive version of Sotomayor is pushed hard by a lazy, stupid, shallow media.

  67. 67.

    Wile E. Quixote

    July 12, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    Fuck it, burn Ricci to the ground. He’s a whining little shit, just like every other white Republican in America and the best way to deal with whining little shits is to beat them bloody so that they for once in their lives actually have something real to whine about. Put that fucker on the stand and make him answer questions about all of the lawsuits he’s filed. Who cares if he becomes another JtP? We’ve all seen how well that and the teabagging protests have worked out for the Republicans now that the teabaggers are attacking Republicans like John Cornyn.

  68. 68.

    HRA

    July 12, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    Linda: Tweety should not take anything handed to him by anyone for airing as being correct without checking it’s validity personally. In fact, that holds true for any job.

    As much as we would like to believe there is opportunity in taking civil service exams or having a decent chance at a promotion in any government job, the truth is someone has already been given the position far in advance of the interviews. It really never mattered about Ricci’s dyslexia. Whoever put him on the witness list is well aware of this practice. It’s game time. Both political parties have done this in the past.

  69. 69.

    Davis X. Machina

    July 12, 2009 at 9:51 pm

    ….how is this guy [Ricci] even allowed in the door? [to testify].

    Because it’s an ancient Senate custom, dating back to whenever that fuckstick Mitch McConnell wants it to.

    Calvinball is the Republican national pastime

  70. 70.

    Bruce Webb

    July 13, 2009 at 8:32 am

    Maybe somewhere out there can answer this question.

    In 1995 Ricci was passed over for initial hire. He filed a lawsuit claiming it was because he was dyslexic. Or did he?

    Because how would the City of New Haven KNOW he was dyslexic? It wouldn’t come up in an eye exam, nor is it the kind of condition you would disclose on any job application I ever saw. Meaning it sounds like it resulted in a poor test score. So did he ask for special accommodation and get denied? Or just argue that timed reading comprehension tests were inherently biased against dyslexics?

    You get some different issues depending on the details.

    Now it was different in the 2003 case. Presumedly by that time the City might well be aware that Ricci was dyslexic, but this doesn’t seem to be an issue in the case in question for Sotomayor. But something is funny about the case that led to the initial hire.
    _______________
    “There were 18 other plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit. I doubt if all of them have sued before but all of them won.”

    Yeah. But whose name ended up on the lawsuit as lead plaintiff? I really doubt the 19 plaintiffs just drew names out of a hat. Ricci is the farthest thing from being the passive empathetic victim the Right would like to make him out to be.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • hotshoe on What the Hell Is Happening In Israel? (Mar 27, 2023 @ 4:35pm)
  • Tony G on Proud to Be A Democrat: Alvin Bragg Is Not Here for the GOP’s Performative Outrage (Mar 27, 2023 @ 4:34pm)
  • cain on Proud to Be A Democrat: Alvin Bragg Is Not Here for the GOP’s Performative Outrage (Mar 27, 2023 @ 4:34pm)
  • NotMax on Cake Watch: Day 1 (Mar 27, 2023 @ 4:34pm)
  • stacib on Cake Watch: Day 1 (Mar 27, 2023 @ 4:32pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!