ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/18/2018 03:18 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.146 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
10/17/2009 08:16 AM ID: 81194 Permalink   

Black Firefighter Suing New Haven over Promotion Test Results

 

In 2003, the city of New Haven tried to determine its firefighters' eligibility for promotions using a test with a written section, which counted for 60% of the total exam score, and an oral section, which counted for 40%.

In Ricci v. DeStefano, the Supreme Court ruled that ignoring the test results violated the civil rights of white firefighters. Michael Briscoe, a black firefighter, is now suing New Haven over the same promotions exam.

Even though Briscoe had a high score on the exam's oral section, he was ineligible for a promotion due to the 60/40 weights. He claims he would've been promoted if the weights had been reversed. He is seeking a promotion and retroactive pay.

 
  Source: www.courthousenews.com  
    WebReporter: nicohlis Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  32 Comments
  
  Additional  
 
A copy of the legal filing is at the source.

The Ricci v. DeStefano case has been covered in various topics here. One being:
Supreme Court Rules in Favour of White Firefighters (http://www.shortnews.com/... There may be others related to Sonia Sotomayor.
 
  by: nicohlis     10/17/2009 08:21 AM     
  Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding this...  
 
But this guys suing because he scored high on the verbal, didn't do so hot on the written portion, and now wants them to completly rearrange the way the test was scored so he would be promoted???

Isnt that like taking an english exam with multiple choice questions worth 70% or your total grade, and an essay worth 30% of your total grade, bombing the multiple question section and aceing the essay and expecting to pass?
 
  by: SoulSerenity   10/17/2009 09:24 AM     
  Oh yeah  
 
Nicohlis- If I didn't know any better I'd think you were hoping I'd reply and look it worked! ;-)

I call BS! I did look at the link you left because I knew it sounded familiar, and this is the one where the man with dyslexia was able to pass the oral AND written test.

Anyone that whines about unfair after that gets ZERO sympathy from me. The test weight should have been 50/50 and not 40/60 just because he happened to do better on the Oral. I should have been rich and never have to deal with the back problems I kow get to deal with but life isn't fair and isn't what we want it to be all the time.

I love how the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the 17 firefighters because the test was set up to favor minority firefighters and so once it is put on a level playing field where the best person wins he sues.

His Lawyer:
"The differences between the written test and the oral exam disadvantaged a candidate, like the plaintiff, who had diligently studied and learned all the material taught during years of on-the-job experience and extensive in-service training, compared to one who did little until the run-up to the exam but then memorized the facts that were included in the assigned written materials," the lawsuit states."

Let's look at this a tad more shall we?

A. A firefighter with DYSLEXIA worked his ass off and passed the test written and oral. He did it by studying with Flash Cards and because of his disorder it is safe to say it would be at LEAST twice as hard for him to pass.

B. The Supreme Court ruled that the White firefighters were at a disadvantage with the test that was used.

C. A firefighter who happens to be black now claims that he studied diligently, learned on the job for years, attended in-services and training sessions and prepared for the test. He got top score in Oral and bombed the written test to where it left him in the high 20's for consideration for the promotion.

D. He also claims that someone who scored more on the written did hardly anything until the time came for getting ready for the test. Yet he passed both the written and oral so he had to know a little more than just cram for a test the night before.

E. All of that and he still fails the written test miserably, he fails a test that has been admitted the Supreme Court that the test was aimed for minorities to do better.

The guy is an idiot. I hope he get's laughed right out of the courtroom. The original test he is whining about did just what it was designed for and that was to give him an advantage with the oral portion, he is the one that still managed to fail the written even though he claims to have more knowledge then his fellow firefighters. He isn't even saying it should have been 50/50 best man for the job, no he says it should have been 40/60 so he could have blown off his test that was so poor it put him near the bottom of written.
 
  by: TaraB     10/17/2009 09:48 AM     
  I  
 
think this explanation seems to be acceptable of reversing the weights but i think also this is not credible.
 
  by: vizhatlan     10/17/2009 02:43 PM     
  let's tell it like it is  
 
this is all about " i am black and didn't get the job so i'll sue to get it". face it, there was a test and the areas were clear. he had an equal oppertunity to study, take and pass the test as anyone else. the fact is he took and passed the test. he is now suing because he didn't get a high enough score. he issuing to get in effect an advantage over others. he wants special treatment over all others that took the test including other black firefighters.
 
  by: shannon853   10/17/2009 03:00 PM     
  ...  
 
It's been a while, and it's early, and I don't care to relearn all the specifics about this case or find links, so everything below is "I think" and could have errors...

This Title VII / Civil Rights thing basically says you must be able to show that a given exclusionary policy is based on objectively finding the best individuals for a given job. If you can show that's true, you're safe no matter what the racial trending result. If you can't show it's true AND the results of that policy show a racial trend, even without intending any racial discrimination, you can be held liable for civil rights violations.

In the Ricci v. DeStefano, the city originally decided to throw out the test results, in part, because there was an aspect of the test (the 60 / 40 weights), which could not be shown as legitimately determining who would best deserve the promotion AND the same aspect resulted is disparate racial results. The 60 / 40 weight did result in racial trending, lots of whites but very, very few minorities qualified for promotions. The city did not feel they could defend the 60 / 40 weighting and dropped the results for fear of being sued.

This Briscoe guy is suing in the exact way that the city tried to avoid by discarding the original results. But, since the city was sued for throwing out the results and the Supreme Court said THAT was a civil rights violation, the results are back in and this guy gets to sue for the same civil rights violation.

Another part of Ricci case was that the written test required specific study materials, which many of the established white firefighters had as hand-me-downs from fellow white firefighters. The same establishment was not true for the black firefighters, so in theory they had to spend more money and wait a longer period of time to get the study materials than the white firefighters. Along with this, some of the written test questions were strictly lifted from the study materials and had little to do with determining who would be best qualified for receiving a promotion (ie - the answer would NOT also come from experience that would yield a high oral score).

I hope his case does go through and I hope he wins, just to show how these racial issues have become irresolvable. In today's world, not discriminating against one IS discriminating against another.
 
  by: nicohlis     10/17/2009 04:25 PM     
  Hmmm  
 
I deal with assholes everyday, who come asking for a a job as Network technicians. First thing they do is, wave their MCSE certification in your face and tell you how long and how hard it was to get it. I go Hmm! OK, very good you are learned.

Then I bring them to our servers, with Lotus, Cisco and Chameleon Cyber security, to see if they can do anyhting to show me how it works. Oh, what is Chameleon, fair you dont know because it wasnt part of MCSE.

Next step, what are concepts of assigning file permissions for windows server. Oh! I did this but, but, I havent worked on this isue yet blah blah... WHIle there is a guy working for me for couple of years, NO MCE, or, MCSE just knows windows and learned how to do this, and is doing a greater job.

If you can apply it verbally and it becomes an issue when you write it, you could have many reasons why, but I will take the guy who is good at doing it, rather than the one who can write it... But thats just me...
 
  by: skcusswentrohs     10/17/2009 06:26 PM     
  @ nicol @ Shannon  
 
"I hope his case does go through and I hope he wins, just to show how these racial issues have become irresolvable. In today's world, not discriminating against one IS discriminating against another"


Well put and that is because certain people feel they are entitled to something because there ancestors where slaves and in guilt the government gives it to them and in this case the Suupreme Court didn't let that guilt affect there decision so now he has to sue becuase he is "entitled". I blame the government, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, NAACP and the apologist we have some on this site. I said some not all and this is the perfect example of that.


Shannon you said "this is all about " i am black and didn't get the job so i'll sue to get it". "


This is what I was trying to say to Tara and Ben the other day. This is the steretype blacks have because well frankly they put it on themselves and stories like this put it in ful force with the media. You won't here about the black guy who takes care of his family and is a hard worker but instead the media will portray it just the way you said. The black man didn't get his way now he is trying to force the issue.


I forgot though the blacks are still treated like dirt and like slaves while the white man dominates according to the apologist. Give me a F'N break. Minorities are given more oppurtunities than a white person any day of the week and yes I'm bitter about it considering we here everyone should be treated fair but its ok to be treated unfairly unless your black. I think alot of racisim occurs from that.
 
  by: willyshawker     10/17/2009 08:24 PM     
  @willy  
 
You just do not f&*king get it, do you? Judging people of a particular skin color by those of them who behave the worst is racist! Assuming you're white, it's just as bad as saying that white people bring stereotypes on themselves when they wear mullets and make meth labs in trailer houses.

"they put it on themselves" -- so a black guy working hard and raising a family in Florida has something to do with a Los Angeles gang-banger just because they're both black? Are you crazy?

Why can't you just judge individual people by their actions? Why do you have to lump them into some group and say that they're all somehow to blame for a few bad people who look like them?
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     10/17/2009 08:34 PM     
  @TaraB  
 
The study materials comments I made were part of the Ricci case. It's a simple, objective observation that the written portion of the exam was based on materials that white firefighters had easier access to via their established firefighter relatives and the same established relatives created a support network that the non-white firefighters did not have. These factors MAY have contributed to the racial trend. The city may be held responsible for civil rights violations due to the racial trends found in the test results even if they did not intend them. The city is responsible for making sure the results of the test represent only merit. Discussing WHY the racial trends happened is important. It's not about anyone manipulating an unfair advantage or actively cheating, it's about identifying and eliminating non-merit-based influences to the exam results - no matter how innocent or warm-fuzzy those influences may be.

I haven't really invested in this case, but my interpretation (could be wrong) is that Briscoe is not saying that the weights SHOULD be 40/60 instead of 60/40, he's generally calling into question the validity of the weights by showing the impact of their reversal (since it could be argued that performance in the oral section is a better indicator of promotion merit). He's basically forcing the city to defend the 60/40, which they explicitly did NOT want to do in the first place.
 
  by: nicohlis     10/18/2009 04:13 AM     
  Nicohlis  
 
I saw this a tad different when it came to the written materials and his complaint about how they were used both in study and in scoring.

I do disagree about what he said about the weights of the exam, he states in his lawsuit that they test should have been reversed and by doing that he would have been promoted. Right from the source and his own words he states "Had the weighting been reversed - 60 percent for the oral exam and 40 percent for the written - Briscoe would be ranked 9th, and would be promoted, he says." So he DOES want the test to be read as a 60(oral)/40(written) and wants a promotion including all the back pay & I guess raises which he could never prove what those would have been or even if his ability as Lietenant wuld have been succesful. That is a whole lot of assuming he wants the courts to do.

I have a hard time accepting that because firefighters that are following family tradition (which is how the majority of firefighters do it) should somehow be punished for that. What I mean by saying that is if a son follows his father and brothers into firefighting they are of course going to have a huge amount of knowledge and support, there is no way to avoid that and no matter what change in any testing will be able to exclude that. Hell most of them were raised in the station and they shouldn't be punished for that.

I think it is great that Briscoe is a firefighter and I am not saying that he wouldn't make a great LT. If he feels the test was wrong 6 years ago then he should re-take it and see how he scores with the changed test. There is nothing that can be done about the other firefighters having access to the materials needed for the test and in some station somewhere there will be black guys that are passing their tests to their brothers, sons or friends and that is life.

I find it quite telling about his attitude and his relationship with his co-workers by what he claims. In no special order.
1.He complained that the materials were passed down so they had an unfair advantage.
2.He complains that someone prepared at the last minute and scored better than him.
3. He complains after the highest court in the US says his fellow firefighters had their civil rights violated (a rare ruling).
4. He then decides to file a lawsuit because now HIS rights are violated because the test no longer favors minorities, a test that he failed even though it was balanced to his advantage.

Briscoe is letting the past test turn into something that is only making his job, a job that has a LOT to do with trusting your co-workers more difficult and no doubt has them all on edge because he played the race card.
 
  by: TaraB     10/18/2009 05:48 AM     
  @willy  
 
First of all, for anybody who managed to miss it -- here's what you actually said:

"This is the steretype blacks have because well frankly they put it on themselves"

Then you come back and make this half-sensical claim that all you were saying is that stereotypes ... exist?

Lame ...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     10/18/2009 06:08 AM     
  @TaraB  
 
He does not make any claims about the study materials. That was information related to the Ricci case, not this one. This is not about the study materials.

He does not specifically want the test to be weighted 40/60. He wants the test to be weighted in a way that promotes those with actual job skills, not test taking skills (ie - cramming, etc). His lawsuit actually cites a 70% weight to the oral section as the norm. From the legal filing, he lists off 3 different hypothetical scenarios showing how different weights would have impacted the racial trending of the finalists for promotion. Keyword throughout is "if".

"The irrationality and unfairness of the selection process are highlighted by considering what the results would be if the City had chosen to give the test components a weighting more related to selection of the best fire lieutenants. If the oral exam were weighted 60 percent and the written test 40 percent instead of the other way around, the plaintiff would be ranked ninth instead of 24th and would be promotable. If the oral exam were weighted 70 percent - the norm for public safety agencies across America - the plaintiff would be ranked fourth, and three African-Americans instead of none would be in the top 12. And if the written test were not considered - because it added little or nothing to the validity of the examination as a whole - three African-Americans would be in the top 12, and the plaintiff would be at the top of the list, ranked number one."

In each case, blacks as a minority are still a minority in the top 12, but at least they are represented. And, the different weighting is not to advance a minority or punish whites. The different weighting is used, even by other agencies, to reward those based only on their job-related skills (not test taking skills, not family support system, etc).

His whole lawsuit is calling out the city for applying the 60/40 with no real reason - "[the weighting] was arbitrarily chosen, without any pretense that it was job related", "[the city] never addressed, much less questioned, the job relatedness of its own choice of the 60/40 weighting", "The City did not believe that the 60 percent weighting that it required was job related", "[the exam vendor] knew that the 60/40 written/oral weighting was not validated or job related", "A scoring system that gave greater weight to the oral portion of the test would have been more job related than the 60 percent weighting on the written test that the City imposed", etc.

Again, it does not matter if the city intended any discrimination. It probably won't even matter how Ricci turned out. Only two things matter: (1) Did the weighting result in disparate racial results, and (2) Did the weighting legitimately aid in selecting the most desirable candidates for the job. The answer to the first question is "Yes". If the answer to the second question is "No", he wins his case against the city.
 
  by: nicohlis     10/18/2009 07:09 AM     
  Nicohlis Pt1  
 
"(1) Did the weighting result in disparate racial results, and (2) Did the weighting legitimately aid in selecting the most desirable candidates for the job. The answer to the first question is "Yes". If the answer to the second question is "No", he wins his case against the city."

The only people that the test was unfair to was the 17 men who happened to be white. He is pissed because he didn't do well on the written and I don't feel bad for him if the one man who was mentioned in Ricci could pass it and was dyslexic. Briscoe should not win this case when the test(doesn't matter who else did what with the weights we are talking this test in 2003 only which is what the suit is about) he took was already weighted towards his advantage and his poor written test skills is not the problem of New Haven, the fire department or the fellow firefighters.

One additonal thing on that before I get to the other stuff is you mentioned that the written test doesn't matter because it was more about being based on job-related skills and no test taking. I almost didn't catch this because my mind was on more of what he said vs not. Test taking skills or written portions of the exams are in fact very important to both know and pass. I prefer hands on teaching and oral exams because I find them easier to explain or show, the written part is just as important to know. Working as a firefighter you are not only doing things physically, you need to be able to do paperwork and that is even more so with a LT position. Why is a written question asking him what OSHA says about <blank> or Asking the proper procedure for making sure the rig is maintained by doing A B or C any less important that telling me what you would do if you came upon and accident that needed extrication? That whole the test part isn't as important is BS and he sucked at it obviously.

He went from FIRST place in oral to 24th(!!!) because of his written test. He didn't study for the written part for whatever reason, he can make up excuses about it not being important, but the fact the honest truth is he blew it and is trying to find any way he can to have that position and back pay. Once he gets all that and the tension is heavy at work because he sued his way into a position he can then sue or "retire" with nice benefits because of the bucket brigade won't have any faith in his ability.

 
  by: TaraB     10/18/2009 08:15 AM     
  Part 2  
 
"He does not make any claims about the study materials. That was information related to the Ricci case, not this one. This is not about the study materials."

Sorry he does make mention of it in the article that you used for the summary. He has to agree to how and what was said in the papers before the lawyer can file them. I just had to go through all this not too long ago on my own lawsuit and anything that I told him he had me check over before he filed, mailed, or handed it over to those that saw it. He said the following.

***"The differences between the written test and the oral exam disadvantaged a candidate, like the plaintiff, who had diligently studied and learned all the material taught during years of on-the-job experience and extensive in-service training, compared to one who did little until the run-up to the exam but then memorized the facts that were included in the assigned written materials," the lawsuit states. ***

Diligently studied, disadvantage on the written exam, one who did little until the run-up, memorize facts in the ASSIGNED written materials. He doesn't mention the study materials? I think he does and to a large degree.


"He does not specifically want the test to be weighted 40/60."

Yes he does. He said it in his own words, in the article that you used as the source. I will show it yet again.

**Had the weighting been reversed - 60 percent for the oral exam and 40 percent for the written - Briscoe would be ranked 9th, and would be promoted, he says.**

**Briscoe claims that the oral exam is a better way to assess candidates' skills and has less disparate impact on African-Americans. "Yet the City chose to weight the written test 60 percent and the oral exam 40 percent," according to his complaint.**

Just a few little points to show what REALLY happened in 2003, not what Mr.Briscoe wants to complain about.

**Briscoe claims in Federal Court that he was unfairly denied promotion to lieutenant because of the way the city scored its 2003 exam.**

And yet..

**The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in June in Ricci v. DeStefano that New Haven violated 17 white firefighters' civil rights by ignoring the test results in granting promotions.**

Now since the tests were ignored for granting promotions that means Briscoe could have been promoted after the test scores were ignored and yet he wasn't so I wonder why that is? We will never know of course, all we do know factually is that the tests scores were ignored and White officers were unfairly passed up for exams that they worked hard for in both oral AND written not just one or the other.

If the civil rights were violated for these 17 men then who was getting the benefit of that? Minorities, which is really starting to reverse but that is a whole different bucket of racists crying so let's not go there now.

The bottom actual facts if you look at it as it truly is comes down to Briscoe FAILED the written part SO BAD that he went for one to 24...he had to miss if not all the written questions, the majority of them. He failed a test that was found by the Supreme Court to be so disadvantageous to A race that it violated their civil rights. Not just aww they didn't do well so let's give them a bone to be happy. We usually see civil rights claims come up for HATE CRIME for Uncle Sam's sake!

He failed a test because he didn't take time to learn ALL the material and thought he would slide by because his oral test went so well.

If my kids came home and was upset because they passed the oral presentation for a project but failed the written because after all she did so well on the oral exam and that was the important part, I would not run down to school and tell them they needed to change her grade..yet this is what Briscoe is doing when you cut all the crap out of the way.
 
  by: TaraB     10/18/2009 08:30 AM     
  @TaraB  
 
For whatever reason Briscoe didn't do well on the written exam, so be it. It does not matter. Whether him suing is crying or whining or petty or disruptive to his crew or whatever, so be it. It does not matter. This case is about the disparate racial impact the 60/40 weighting had and whether or not the city can demonstrate that the weighting "is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity". That's what matters. That's Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Fairness going into the test does not matter, the results DO have a disparate racial impact, arguably because of the weights, so the "job related" and "business necessity" of the weights must be proven by the city, that's what matters. If you want to argue that a written test with questions directly from some study guide should weigh 60% on a person's qualifications for lieutenant, go for it, but at least according to his complaint and from what I remember about the Ricci case, a higher weight on the oral is a better way of finding the best candidates.

Your statements are out of whack. You have said, "Stating that because some of the testing materials were passed down to other's and Briscoe had to pay for them is somehow giving one over the other an unfair advantage is bullshit" and "He complained that the materials were passed down so they had an unfair advantage". You took what I said from the Ricci and made it out like it was what Briscoe said in this case. That's all.

That Briscoe is talking about how one can pass the written exam without being truly qualified for a promotion is simply true. Anyone with study materials can pass any exam assuming they have the capacity to read and remember for some period of time, especially if the questions only require fact regurgitation and not critical thinking. This ability does not qualify a person to be a lieutenant firefighter.

And I will also say yet again, he does not want the test to specifically be 40/60. In his own words he employs several HYPOTHETICAL scenarios (using the "let's pretend" words of "had" and "if") to show how differing weights would change the leaderboard. In particular he cites how other agencies weigh oral higher and demonstrates that other weights would not have resulted in the same racial disparity (which would have prevented this case and the Ricci case). Again, this forces the city to prove that the 60/40 weights were a business related necessity in picking the most ideal candidates. They do not want to do this.

As far as using Ricci, remember that the Ricci case was originally decided in favor of the city in District Court and Appeals Court by Sotomayor, and her decision was reversed only by a split Supreme Court. It's hardly a slam dunk that the white firefighters won the case at the very last possible point and to win by the slimmest possible margin. In Ricci the Supreme Court said the city could NOT use THREAT of a lawsuit as a defense in throwing out the test results. But then the Supreme Court also says that if the city is sued for allowing the results (ie - Briscoe's case), it IS a defense to say they WERE sued for not allowing them. Ironic.

Unfortunately, the Ricci case may be a tough hill to climb.
 
  by: nicohlis     10/18/2009 06:26 PM     
  Well  
 
Out of whack? Taken what you said out of context? I worked with the material that was in the source that YOU used for the summary. I didn't even use what you wrote in the summary, any direct quote of Briscoe was on the source page.

"You took what I said from the Ricci and made it out like it was what Briscoe said in this case. That's all."

Again, I took what the article said not YOU. Maybe you need to review which summary you are quoting out of and which you posted. I am not taking what you said out of Ricci and all the quotes I used of what Bricoe said(pretend words how cute) and if he was playing with pretend words, that isn't my fault they were put into his lawsuit and accredited to him.

If you want to argue with your own source have at it, but instead of calling me whack(didn't even know that word was still in existance)maybe you should put up all the sources you are taking information from and have them debate each other.
 
  by: TaraB     10/19/2009 01:50 AM     
  About this fire department.  
 
Do they ever put out fires, or do they spend all their time arguing over who gets promoted and what race they are?
 
  by: H. W. Hutchins   10/19/2009 02:08 AM     
  @TaraB  
 
Show me one source anywhere that supports your claim that "[Briscoe] complained that the materials were passed down so they had an unfair advantage."
 
  by: nicohlis     10/19/2009 04:16 AM     
  @TaraB  
 
From my summary: "He claims he would've been promoted IF the weights had been reversed." From the source: "HAD the weighting been reversed... Briscoe... would be promoted." Note that this quote from the source that you have repeated used is NOT a "direct quote" from Briscoe. From the legal filing: "IF the oral exam were weighted 60 percent and the written test 40 percent...", "IF the oral exam were weighted 70 percent...", "IF the written test were not considered...". All of these statments are, as I said, hypothetical arguments - not claims for relief.

No where in his claims for relief from the lawsuit does he say he wants the courts to force the city to apply a 40/60 weighting to exam results. In his statement for relief, he wants to either be considered for promotion OR wants "the City [to] use a nondiscriminatory selection system to make promotions".
 
  by: nicohlis     10/19/2009 04:21 AM     
  He's black.  
 
Therefore, he is entitled to the job. After all, it worked for Obama.
 
  by: walter3ca   10/19/2009 04:58 AM     
  how about  
 
if he was unable to complete the written portion of the exam, he could do the required paper work of a leiutenant? that would seem obvious to me.
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   10/19/2009 09:00 AM     
  Sorry  
 
pop-up killed my typing, i mean if he couldnt do the exam, maybe he couldnt do the paperwork associated with that role?
 
  by: ssxxxssssss   10/19/2009 09:01 AM     
  Sxx, All, Nic prt100 I think  
 
@ The actual deal no matter what we debate about is that he screwed up his written test SO BAD that he went from 1st to in oral FIRST to 24th overall. He sucked on his test, he didn't study as diligently as he claims or he choked from test anxiety. He didn't get LT then and unless he wants to take it again tough luck. He shouldn't get the assumption of a promotion especially one with raises since we don't know if he would have lasted a few months or a few years. He bombed a test that was a unfair advantage towards minorities and the SUPREME COURT said that the white men had their civil rights violated. *Plays in loop after so many times*

SSSSXXXXSSS=I mentioned that too but was blown off. I did it a few times actually now that I read my replies.

nicohlis- You tended to do the same thing on the homeless thread by wanting to repeat and cherry pick at every if and or but to make your point. I will say that this is getting very time consuming and you keep twisting words and meanings JUST enough to try and keep it going. First of all the last post to me about your summary? I had already told you I wasn't speaking about your summary, I was talking about what was IN THE SOURCE. Sorry for the caps just as you wanted each if in caps maybe you will get the hint that I took my information out of the source, since you are using several I can't speak on those issues.


You also tossed a new argument out there I see and even changed it from your previous claim. Listen for a moment because if you want to go through all the court filings and what not that is totally up to you, I am only replying to what was in the source article and I am not going to make any assumptions on how the word if should mean to you or someone else.

"In his statement for relief, he wants to either be considered for promotion OR wants "the City [to] use a nondiscriminatory selection system to make promotions".

Is this in the source you gave? You can't make that assumption and you never claimed that before. Plus the the source you used for this there is NO mention of consideration for promotion or, well or anything.
**He wants to be promoted, retroactive pay, and an injunction. He is represented by David Rosen.**

A few sections from your source once again. Oh looky here he says that the test, which the Supreme Court ruled violated their civil rights because it was balanced toward giving minorities an unfair advantage, should have been 60 oral because it would be more fair to not only have a test balanced against someones civil rights, it needs to be even more balanced against them because he couldn't pass the written test. If he could have passed the written portion this would never had been an issue at all to him and screw anyone else it affected.

"Briscoe claims that the oral exam is a better way to assess candidates' skills and has less disparate impact on African-Americans. "Yet the City chose to weight the written test 60 percent and the oral exam 40 percent," according to his complaint."
**Had the weighting been reversed - 60 percent for the oral exam and 40 percent for the written - Briscoe would be ranked 9th, and would be promoted, he says."*He says not a lawyer or Skippy the Kangaroo HE SAYS.

 
  by: TaraB     10/19/2009 10:38 AM     
  Part102 for nic, endless debate for the rest ;-)  
 
I can't stay away even though I tried.

"Show me one source anywhere that supports your claim that "[Briscoe] complained that the materials were passed down so they had an unfair advantage."

Anywhere huh? Ok.

YOU YOURSELF said it, so for whatever reason you wanted to argue this part yet since I am already invested in this story and expect some kind of payoff one day. Did You want to retract your question or the reply, which one?

You- "The study materials comments I made were part of the Ricci case. It's a simple, objective observation that the written portion of the exam was based on materials that white firefighters had easier access to via their established firefighter relatives and the same established relatives created a support network that the non-white firefighters did not have."

So YOU actually brought up how it was unfair that they were passed down and had an unfair advantage, I can show what the source said that somewhat is with it also so there will be two things. Your part was from Ricci you said and I am not using Ricci as a source so it had to be in there for your to say it since you are expecting everything I say to be well somewhere on earth. The part I did use on THIS source would be this.

"The differences between the written test and the oral exam disadvantaged a candidate, like the plaintiff, who had diligently studied and learned all the material taught during years of on-the-job experience and extensive in-service training, compared to one who did little until the run-up to the exam but then memorized the facts that were included in the assigned written materials," the lawsuit states."

I noticed something else that actually made me giggle "compared to one who did little until the run-up to the exam but then memorized the facts that were included in the assigned written materials."

One-so there is an actual person who, did little or nothing until the run-up And? That really has no meaning other than the person who waitied according to Briscoe (We can't know what this 'one' did or didn't do to prepare)

He then used his memory to retain the facts needed for the test(Which is always a good thing, It's like any child taking an exam or us sorta grown ups who have to take license or board exam)
The facts were INCLUDED in the the ASSIGNED written materials.

I did this last for a reason. Briscoe was well aware that there would be a written part for this test, he was also aware that any facts and information for the written test was included in the materials provided to them ALL.

He claims that he studied diligently and did all the in-servies and material that was to be learned. He busted his ass to do all this and he ACED that oral test, so what happened to the written? Yes we know he failed it and failed in a big way. He either has massive test anxiety which I am not sure about since he was able to do so well on his oral, he didn't study as much as he said he did and figured the oral would carry him through. Whichever it was and what I have said all along and others have said the same even though you give me all the credit. He flunked the test because his written points went from 1st all the way to 24th. I will go further and say with the 17 men that filed suit because the test was set up to be harder for them(hint that means written was weighted towards the minorities passing it)are the ones that were wronged here, not Briscoe who had an advantage from the very start.

He failed because he sucked at the written, he wouldn't make a good LT if he can not know how to do paperwork. This includes how to know which codes mean what, which forms need to be filled out and how the proper way is, how to figure out payroll and send that in to have the checks cut, How to write up incident reports for both a firefighters injury or for the reports that would be needed.
 
  by: TaraB     10/19/2009 11:14 AM     
  In the words of Rodney King,  
 
Can't we all just get along? lol. While we're at it, let's get him his 40 acres and a mule. I want my reparations. j/k
 
  by: C.O.G.   10/19/2009 03:55 PM     
  I don't want to jump into a race debate but...  
 
Why does the written count more than the oral.

When a fire chief decides to send 1 engine to one fire and two engines to another fire and not vice versa how often does he have to do that in writing?
 
  by: VermiciousG     10/19/2009 04:52 PM     
  @TaraB  
 
Well, reality seems a little outside your comfort zone at this point, but I'll try anyway.

First, you could not be more WRONG with what you have repeatedly said about the Ricci case. In that case, the Supreme Court did NOT say that the test was advantageous for minorities. No such thing was even hinted at throughout their ruling. They ruled that the act of throwing out the test results for fear of being sued over the racial disparity in the results was discrimination. Big difference. Facts matter, even if they aren't in the source. (Maybe that statement should play on a loop.)

Second, you have repeatedly said that the test results should be weighed 50/50 for fairness. That is not relevant. This is about finding the best candidates. If a 50/50 split does not find the best candidates, then it is not the proper way to run the test, and if a 50/50 split results in racial disparity, the city could still get sued.

Third, I said your comments were "out of whack" which is a well established phrase that I used properly. I did not say you were "whack" which is 90's hip-speak.

Fourth, I'm not sure, but I think you finally realized your statement was wrong. I did mention study materials being passed down due to it being mentioned in Ricci. Briscoe did NOT mention the same thing. No where did I say Briscoe made such a claim. So you do withdrawn your false accusation of Briscoe making such a claim. Good.

Fifth, my whole subpoint is that you have no standing to say that Briscoe wants the test result weights to be reversed to be 40/60. You don't. The quote you keep using is a hypothetical argument. The source line YOU used even shows this ("He wants to be promoted, retroactive pay, and an injunction" - See? No 40/60). I included additional comments from the legal filing to show that not only was the source not complete, but you further have no standing to make such a claim based on his total claims for relief not including what you are claiming.

Sixth, "He says" without actual quotation marks indicates the journalist paraphrased something. The lack of quotation marks explicitly means Briscoe was NOT directly quoted. At the very least this means you should at least be curious what was actually said, which I have posted twice, which comes from the legal filing, which is linked at the source.

Seventh, I cannot help if you are confused as to what "if" means.

Eighth, if a lieutenant firefighter spends 60% of his professional time doing paperwork such that the written exam should count for 60% of the score, then the weights may be justified and the city is safe. I don't know how much time a lieutenant spends doing paperwork. If you do, please share a source.

You are all over the place with your comments and in no way connecting the dots I am painstakingly putting right next to each other. Many of your comments are based on gross misunderstandings of foundational information (Ricci case, relevance of the weights, etc).

Good luck.
 
  by: nicohlis     10/19/2009 05:27 PM     
  VG&Nic  
 
VG- It isn't a race debate at all, at least not from my prospective. The reason the written test is important at all isn't because of paperwork he would have had to do alone. Those that tested were each given materials to be studied. The matierials handed to them for studying could have included answers that were both oral and written responses. I do not know the exact things on the written exam, but I am sure some of it was to see how one would be able to deal with either written or oral directions, about what certain codes meant, etc. Whatever was on the written test Briscoe obviously didn't know much if anything about which would lead one to guess he didn't study any of the information they gave and his lawyer submitted something that says(either he said it or Santa said it for him) that it was unfair because someone could come in at the last minute and pass that part.

The point that not only I made, but others as well is he failed the test and failed it so bad that no matter what weight was given he pretty much wouldn't have passed since he went from #1 to #24. That is the way it read in the source article regarding the 1 to 24.
***************************

nicohlis -I won't be baited by your rude personal attacks or your condescending tone that has continued in the last couple replies which I tried to ignore. I did correct you on the use of a old phrase to which you choose to twist as you have most of this discussion.

If you wanted to discuss Ricci and the merits you should have put that in the forums which would have been the proper place since it is a discussion over a lawsuit, whereas the News section is for news articles and reports not to link a news article to instead discuss and make your points on most things that are not even in the source.

See here is the problem with using Ricci as your excuse/source, you never linked to it while you used information from it so while you said blank was from Ricci and blank wasn't and if you look at Ricci it is a moot point because it wasn't the source, it wasn't ever given as a link.

All of the information that I used was either quoted by you or in the actual source. If you have problems with anything I said then there are only two places to blame: the source or yourself. Both of which you are responsible for, not me. From my initial response on the information was from what what your submitted for the discussion. As I said before when you posted in the homeless summary I did a few months ago you turn what the source and story is into something that it never was by adding in links and legal arguments that went off into left-fieled. You also had a hard time being proved wrong there also maybe you need to go to law school so you can have all these intense battles in front of a Judge, you could paid for arguing all day long so that could be a real bonus.

As I said in the last part this has become time consuming and after your last reply well I can't tell you what I honestly think of it without getting admonished so you can just use your imagination if you choose.

 
  by: TaraB     10/20/2009 07:58 AM     
  @TaraB  
 
The Ricci case was mentioned in the source and it is completely valid to discuss in this thread.

You call me out to provide links to Ricci when I use it correctly, but you don't feel any obligation to provide links for any of the multiple times you misused it and spread completely false information? That's pretty hypocritical of you. Here it is anyway: The Supreme Court decision for Ricci v. DeStefano is freely available to the public from the Supreme Court website, as are all Supreme Court decisions. Find it. You have your mind made up and won't hear anything that goes against it, so I'm not going to do the work for you. You're guilty of your own condescension, but yours is surely worse because you've built it on misunderstandings and falsehoods.

I try to bring in more information to create a clearer and more accurate picture of events so people can make a more informed opinion on complicated matters.

You want to cling to the source as if you have some obligation to be completely oblivious to additional, vitally relevant information - here and in the other thread. Why?

Perhaps you should head over to E-online. You won't need any real information for arguments over there.
 
  by: nicohlis     10/20/2009 04:50 PM     
  ONTIME  
 
Mmmmm, mmmm, MMM.....Encouraged by the Soto Mayor school of thought, Liberalisim 101.

Oh to be a wise latina woman, again.
 
  by: ONTIME   10/22/2009 08:43 PM     
  RAPPY  
 
Sorry.. I could've sworn that...
Nevermind.
 
  by: VermiciousG     10/22/2009 08:58 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com