Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
1,322 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
4 whites earn new fire jobs in reverse bias suit

by Ellen J. Silberman (Boston Herald)
Tuesday, August 26, 2003

Four white males who sued the Boston Fire Department for reverse discrimination after they were rejected as firefighter applicants must be hired the next time there is a vacancy, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Stearns also ordered that the men, when hired, be paid on the salary grade as if they had been hired in October 2000 - the date they were passed over in favor of minority candidates.

A fifth plaintiff, Joseph Quinn, who was eventually hired in October 2002, also will see a pay hike under the ruling. All of the men will receive an amount of back pay determined by a mediator.

City officials reacted cautiously to the ruling.

``The city has just received this decision,'' mayoral spokesman Seth Gitell said. ``The city's lawyers are reviewing it and considering its implications for future hiring.''

Stearns' ruling had been anticipated since March when a federal appeals court lifted a 1974 court order mandating the fire department follow race-based hiring preferences to remedy past discrimination.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, Harold Litchen, did not immediately return phone calls last night.
 

·
MassCops Member
Joined
·
132 Posts
Wow! Imagine that! You take a test which incorporates basic job knowledge or tasks. And then the person or persons who score highest on this test are given preference rather than everyone else who gets this special preference or that.

Say it ain't so, Not in Mass!
 
G

·
I nominate Judge Richard Stearns as the 2003 recipient of the "Judicial Voice Of Reason Award" to be given at the earliest possible convenience. This is a rare and just verdict. (Not often seen around these parts)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
HousingCop said:
I nominate Judge Richard Stearns as the 2003 recipient of the "Judicial Voice Of Reason Award" to be given at the earliest possible convenience. This is a rare and just verdict. (Not often seen around these parts)
I'll second that.
 
G

·
You may want to rethink your praise of Stearn. First of all he originally ruled against these guys. A federal appeals court overturned his decision, and told him to rethink. second, Stearn limited this decision to the 4 only. He apparently thinks their the only ones who've been been violated.
If he were a "good guy" he would have granted a blanket ruling for all.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top