On 01/29/10 11:20, Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/nyregion/14fire.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1264791670-GxVD+sfKjvw04Ji/zop/fQ
> 
> 	It fails to explain how exactly the test discriminated. I looked at
> some other articles, and none gives any detail whatsoever.

Some more info:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/01/federal-judge-rules-new-york-city.php

This site links to the actual ruling. I read only the first few pages,
but it seems that the argument was:

1. The test involves written comprehension, which black people in NYC
suck at (I'm dropping political correctness for the rest of this message).

2. It was alleged, and the court apparently agreed, that this wasn't by
accident, but done intentionally by the fire department.

3. The court allowed the city to make the case that the questions (or
perhaps the _format_ of the test) was relevant to being a good
firefighter. The court did not feel the city made the case.

(There may have been subtleties on what constituted a passing mark).

Hence, the court found unnecessary/intentional discrimination occurring.
The argument put forth by the plaintiffs was that being particularly
good at written comprehension to the level needed to pass the test was
not particularly important to being a good firefighter, and the court
agreed.

If someone wants to read it more thoroughly and correct me, please do so.

You can find sample problems here:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20406299&BRD=2731&PAG=461&dept_id=574907&rfi=onmousedown=return

	(They definitely are related to firefighting).

	Also, although I don't know if this was used in court and was part of
the decision, a side argument was that for other departments (police
department, etc), the blacks in NYC have little trouble satisfying the
requirements for those departments, so they were hinting that something
fishy was up with the FD.

-- 
One flea to another: "Is there life on other dogs?"

Post a reply to this message