Ricci, Impartiality, and Empathy

Mark of New Jersey

Mark is a Founding Editor of The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, the predecessor of Ordinary Times.

Related Post Roulette

8 Responses

  1. Jaybird says:

    An aside: If a fireman ever comes to my house, I don’t care if he’s black, white, brown, yellow, red, or purple.

    I just want him to be able to deadlift 220 pounds.

    If the supervisor is hiring firemen using criteria other than “can he get up a ladder carrying a hose”, “can he dead lift a 220 pound guy”, “can he get down a ladder carrying a 220 pound guy”, and “is he dumb enough to want to get paid just over diddly squat in order to get the opportunities to do so” (and associateds), he’s not a good supervisor.

    Title VII considerations seem greatly inappropriate here.Report

  2. E.D. Kain says:

    I kid because I care…Report

  3. And because you’re slightly unbalanced…Report

  4. E.D. Kain says:

    Who you callin’ “slightly”?Report

  5. mike farmer says:

    Another interesting question in the debate is if judicial activism in favor of reason and justice necessary to overturn bad, irrational laws. Civil rights activists would most likely think so.Report

  6. richard says:

    the problem i have with her decision is that the suit was summarily dismissed. does anyone else have a problem with that?Report

  7. Richard – there’s nothing unusual about a case being dismissed on summary judgment. Summary judgment is always appropriate when there is no dispute about material facts. Arguably there was such a dispute here, insofar as the plaintiffs claimed that the proferred rationale for rescinding the test results (ie, they violated Title VII) were just a pretext….but that’s a pretty tough conclusion to reach given the apparent concession that the test results in fact violated Title VII. Had the plaintiffs pursued a mixed-motive theory, they would have been on much firmer ground for opposing SJ, at least so far as I can tell.Report