Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 05-27-09 at 03:52 PM.
and later in the document from someone else....Other firefighters, who
believed the tests were fair, also spoke in support of the
certifying the results. See, e.g., Testimony of Michael
Blatchley, id. at 75 (“[N]one of those questions were not in that
study material. Every one of those questions came from the
http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/...2009-28-06.pdfHowever, he generally “felt the questions were
relevant for both exams,” and believed that the New Haven
applicants were advantaged over examinees in other locations because they were instructed exactly which chapters from the
study materials would be on the tests. Id. at 36.
Heh, I was almost there:
Specifically, the EEOC “four-fifths rule” provides that a
selection tool that yields “[a] selection rate for any race, sex,
or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty
percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will
generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as
evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as
evidence of adverse impact.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D).
Here, the evidence shows that on the 2003 Lieutenant’s exam
the pass rate for whites was 60.5%, for African-Americans 31.6%
and Hispanics 20%. The four-fifths score would be 48%. In other
words, African-Americans had a pass rate that was about half the
pass rate for Caucasians, yielding an adverse impact ratio
(“AIR”) of 0.59, significantly below the AIR of 0.80 that is
presumed to not evidence adverse impact under the EEOC
Guidelines. See Pl. L.R. 56(a) Stmt. ¶ 246; Def. L.R. 56(a)
Stmt. ¶ 246. While the parties dispute the Captain’s exam pass
rate for African-Americans and Hispanics (see supra note 7), the
pass rate for Caucasians was 88%, which is more than double that
of minorities and thus by either party’s statistic an AIR far
below the four-fifths guideline is yielded.
However, "they" do, and they voted for their Messiah. Now their Messiah is appointing bigoted activist judges, as expected. Fortunately, this broad is replacing someone just like her, so nothing will change on the USSC. It's really a shame that a so-called Constitutional law perfessor could nominate a thing like her, but it's what we all expect from the Messiah.
"We" expect is because we know the Messiah is a fraud and a enemy.
"They" expect it because they are easily led and fairly stupid when it comes to the uses of the power they've granted their Messiah.
More from the ruling:
In other words, in this part, the plaintiffs case was weak.Plaintiffs’ argument boils down to the assertion that if
defendants cannot prove that the disparities on the Lieutenant
and Captain exams were due to a particular flaw inherent in those
exams, then they should have certified the results because there
was no other alternative in place. Notwithstanding the shortcomings in the evidence on existing, effective alternatives,
it is not the case that defendants must certify a test where they
cannot pinpoint its deficiency explaining its disparate impact
under the four-fifths rule simply because they have not yet
formulated a better selection method.