Sotomayor, good or bad for HR?

What do you think of Obama's candidate for the next Supreme Court Justice?

Sharon

Comments

  • 27 Comments sorted by Votes Date Added
  • Not sure yet. Does she have a record on employment related opinions and decisions?
  • Today's Wall Street Journal has an article about one of Judge Sotomayor's most contentious rulings. She and two federal appeals court colleagues said last year that New Haven, CT, had the right to reject the results of two promotion tests because no black firefighters scored high enough. tk

    [URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354041637563491.html[/URL]
  • Yes, I have heard about that one. On the surface it does sound questionable but I think you would need to know more about the specifics of the case. What came to my mind was adverse impact. Was the promotion process biased against minority candidates? Perhaps the lack of any minority candidates indicated that. If that was the case, then I think her ruling has merit.

    I am opposed to Obama (or any president) choosing a supreme court justice solely based on race or gender. However, if she is a qualified candidate who happens to be a HIspanic female, that's great. Its a wonderful example to other younger Hispanic females in our country.
  • Today's Washington Post has weighed in with a long article on the New Haven case. tk

    [B][URL]http://tinyurl.com/krg894[/URL][/B]
  • Democrat + liberal = bad for HR.

    Democrat + liberal = good for employees.


    Just my opinion...
  • [quote=Paul in Cannon Beach;716306]Was the promotion process biased against minority candidates? Perhaps the lack of any minority candidates indicated that. If that was the case, then I think her ruling has merit.[/quote]

    Hmmm, 27 eligible black firefighters were able to take the test... so I am gonna go out on a limb and say there was not a lack of minority candidates, just a lack of minority candidates who passed with a decent score. It is unfair to those who studied for months to have their scores dismissed. When you took the PHR how would you have felt if they had said, "Nah, he is a white male - so even though he passed, he won't get the designation because too many minorities didn't pass"? It is reverse discrimination.
  • It sounds suspicious, but I think we need to see the test to know for sure. From what I have read, quite a few people passed the test so they had to take the top 2 scores. If everyone had access to the study materials and those 2 studied the most, then it makes sense that they get it. If the tests really were not fair, though, results need to be tossed.

    In this case all 3 judges ruled the same. That alone makes me wonder about the quality of the test. Either way, the city messed up. They should have made sure their test was good to start with, and if it was, stick with the results. The guy who quit his second job to study for the test only to have it thrown out has been cheated.

    Just my 2 cents.
  • Interesting that this decision is being touted by right-wing talk radio as an example of liberal judicial activism.

    Two points:

    The decision went against the union; [I]and[/I] the decision affirmed the rights of local governments.

    The last time I checked, those were considered [B]conservative[/B] goals.

    Another point that's probably more important... The appeals court (or even the Supreme Court) does not necessarily rule on the merits of the original case. The court frequently rules only on whether the original court/judge handled the case according to law or the constitution. The original judge in this case dismissed the white firefighters' suit, if I recall. I believe the appeals court merely upheld that the dismissal was within reason. Again - that is the opposite of judicial activism.
  • Hey Nae,
    I don't know about this case. . but not sure it would be the city's fault.
    Here, we get promotional tests from company's who specialize in testing. .
    If the city "made up" the test I can agree with you, but if the city purchased it from one of these companys, in my opinion, the owness falls to them as to validity etc.
  • Sonny:

    I assumed the test was probably purchased. They should have done their research before they bought the tests. If the tests are fine, then why throw them out? If not, then why buy them?

    This may really come down to a good test that produced unhappy results. It may just be a city trying to avoid a lawsuit (and it didn't work). Either way, the city had an obligation to make sure they were giving a fair test.

    It could be that they did their research and thought the tests would be good. If so, why are they so quick to throw out the results? We need to see some evidence that there was something they hadn't realized was in the test...something [I]anyone[/I] could have missed. It sounds like they just didn't like the results and were afraid of a lawsuit and so over-reacted. I could be wrong though. The only way to know for sure is to see the test and also to see if it has had a disparate impact when other organizations used it.
  • [QUOTE=Irie;716308]Democrat + liberal = bad for HR.

    Democrat + liberal = good for employees.[/QUOTE]

    By this reasoning, it follows that : good for employee = bad for HR.

    That may be true if you practice HR from an administrative perspective (what is easy to administer and won't cause a lot of work for HR). But, it is not true if you practice HR from an operational perspective (what will help the organization and its work units accomplish their goals, even if it means more work for HR).

    I agree that, at times, what is good for employees (e.g., a flexible schedule), may make it difficult for a supervisor to get the work done in a timely manner (e.g., manage the work force); but I truly believe that you can always find the happy medium that provides for happy employees and efficient work processes. How all of this impacts HR is not irrelevant, but it is secondary to the success of the organization.

    Sorry for going off the main topic of this thread.
  • Out of curiosity, how many of you are required (by CBA, for example) to make hiring or promotional decisions based solely on testing?
  • [QUOTE=Paul in Cannon Beach;716304]Not sure yet. Does she have a record on employment related opinions and decisions?[/QUOTE]

    John Phillips has posted the first of a series of posts he'll make on Sotomeyer's background from the labor and employment perspective over at The Word on Employment Law.

    [url]http://tinyurl.com/ko3vcz[/url]
  • [quote=DavidS;716323]By this reasoning, it follows that : good for employee = bad for HR.

    That may be true if you practice HR from an administrative perspective (what is easy to administer and won't cause a lot of work for HR). But, it is not true if you practice HR from an operational perspective (what will help the organization and its work units accomplish their goals, even if it means more work for HR).

    I agree that, at times, what is good for employees (e.g., a flexible schedule), may make it difficult for a supervisor to get the work done in a timely manner (e.g., manage the work force); but I truly believe that you can always find the happy medium that provides for happy employees and efficient work processes. How all of this impacts HR is not irrelevant, but it is secondary to the success of the organization.

    Sorry for going off the main topic of this thread.[/quote]


    David, I agree with you that finding the happy medium is the goal but I don't think how HR is impacted is irrelevant. HR generally has to be a facilitator and HR needs are usually secondary to employer/employee needs, but far from irrelevant.

    Generally, if whatever the issue is doesn't work for HR then, long term, it won't work for the company or for the employee. Laws, policies, practices, etc. all have to consider how/if they can be administered. And, let's face it, HR is usually the administrator that has to make it work.

    Sharon
  • Nae. . you are right. .I spoke before I had grasped the whole deal. .I didn't get that the CITY had thrown it out on it's own. .very stupid, tho there has been more than one occasion when I would have like to do the same thing.

    Frank. .we are not bound by CBA but by Civil Service regulations, ordinance driven. We used to have entry level police and fire in addition to promotional exams in both departments. If you passed you got on an eligibilty list to be hired/promoted. The score was only one factor under consideration in hiring. . the lowest score could be hired and the highest not. The Chiefs successfully argued to the Civil Service Board to get rid of entry level tests. Fine with me. We still do promotional, but again, not obligated to promote the highest score.
  • I subscribe to the notion that what makes our job easier in HR isn't necessarily good for the country, and vice-versa. Our 'pain in the butt' could provide justice or an opportunity to someone who deserves it, or could be a measure to ensure the right thing is done by companies which have NOT had the foresight to hire stellar professionals like ourselves. A just society and a strong economy are NOT mutually exclusive.

    Yesterday, I received an invite to sit in the audience for a panel discussion - starring Newt Gingrich - on how Obama's health care reform is going to destroy the country. It's being sponsored by one of our group insurance carriers. Gee... lots of credibility there.
  • Hey Frank. . don't know if your last post was directed at me. .I never met to imply test were a pain in the butt. I just have mixed feelings about them, especially at an entry level. This is small conservative southern town where I think when they were first initiated they did do just what you suggested. . provide justice or an opportunity to someone who deserves it. . rather than always hiring Bubba the county sheriff's cousin. .Now we actively recruit for minorities and when we did entry level, if they didn't pass, they didn't even have a shot. As to the promotional. .am just not convienced a high score makes you a good officer or vice versa.
  • Sonny - My reply was not directed at you (I don't think), but was a response to the general notion that liberals are bad for HR and conservatives are good for HR. I probably could have worded it better, but an additional point that I've tried to make here is just because something causes more work for us (HR people) doesn't make it bad - for HR, for 'business', or for the U.S.

    Also, I would venture to say that many of us work for organizations that wouldn't even have an HR department if it weren't for Title VII, Equal Pay Act, FMLA, ADA, COBRA, ERISA, ADEA, EEO, etc. When it comes to legislated equality or fairness, we can choose to look at it as creating more work for us, or we can choose to look at it as creating job security for our profession.

    Edited part - I also meant to say that David S. hit the nail on the head. (Sharon, re your reply to David, he said it is [I]not[/I] irrelevant to HR.)
  • Frank,

    You're absolutely correct. I probably wouldn't jump up on that soap box nearly as often if I'd just wash my contacts more frequently.

    Sharon
  • Supreme Court is expected to release its ruling on the Ricci case (New Haven firefighters' reverse discrimination claims) in the next hour or so. We'll keep you posted. tk
  • In the Ricci case, Supreme Court has ruled in the white New Haven firefighters' favor. As you probably know, the ruling reverses a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals-court judge. Here is a link to the Court's ruling. tk

    [B][URL]http://tinyurl.com/kl5opn[/URL][/B]
  • Tony, when you have read that 93 page decision, could you get back to us?
  • According to John Phillips, she tends to follow case law closely. That can't be a bad thing in a judge. Makes you wonder though, when a Supreme Court nominee's most famous case (or one of them) gets reversed by the sitting Supreme court.
  • In an unusual addendum to the opinion, Justice Thomas has recommended that the firefighters' teenage daughters all be strip-searched.
  • John Phillips, who has written extensively about the Sotomayor nomination, has posted some early general thoughts about today's Supreme Court ruling. tk

    [URL]http://employmentlawpost.com/theword/2009/06/29/sotomayor-reversed-by-supreme-court/[/URL]

    Updated mid-day on 6/30/09: John has now posted more in-depth comments looking at a possible "new world order" for discrimination claims and diversity matters after [I]Ricci[/I] and what the ruling means for employers.

    [url]http://employmentlawpost.com/theword/2009/06/30/supreme-court-rules-for-white-firefighters-in-discrimination-case/[/url]
  • For those of you who can't get enough good information about the issues and angles to the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, we've published a special HR Hero Line (weekly e-zine) today. Our web content mastermind Wendi Watts put together the package of articles featuring some of [I]Tennessee Employment Law Letter [/I]editor and blogger extraordinaire John Phillips' writings on Sotomayor's key appellate court opinions, and additional analysis provided by the editors of our [I]Connnecticut Employment Law Letter [/I](the [I]Ricci[/I] case involved a group of white firefighters in New Haven). Here is a link. tk

    [B][URL]http://tinyurl.com/l2xrq5[/URL][/B]
  • For those interested, CNN is also live streaming the video feed of the confirmation hearings. [url]http://tinyurl.com/b8dq82[/url]
Sign In or Register to comment.