Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 613 of 618 FirstFirst ... 113513563603610611612613614615616 ... LastLast
Results 12,241 to 12,260 of 12347
Like Tree74Likes

Thread: Fdny List 6019

  1. #12241
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River6019 View Post
    Actually, it seems like Judge Pauline Newman (who is NOT a man) was in fact nominated by Reagan along with Winter. So it seems like only 1 out of the 3 judges will be left leaning, which must be a great thing for the city and the future of the FDNY.

    *Edit - unless the judge is Jon Newman... I guess there are a couple different Newman's in the second circuit. He was at first nominated by Nixon for US district court for what its worth.
    It is Jon Newman, the Pauline Newman sits on a completely different appeals court.

    Sleepy, its tough to speculate but the NJ case doesn't compare to the FDNY case, and why would the Supreme court take a case it already ruled on?


  2. #12242
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    186

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by GIMMEFIRE600 View Post
    Well, the Second Circuit released the judges that will be presiding over the case, they are: Newman, Winter, Pooler. I tried to dig up some info about each of them.

    Pooler, who was nominated by Clinton, is supposedly the most liberal judge in the Second Circuit (she also sat on the Second Circuit panel that affirmed the decision of the district court in the Ricci v. Destefano case) . Newman was nominated by Carter and is considered to be liberal (from what I read, his opinions while he was a district judge were influential in the Roe v. Wade case). Winter was nominated by Reagan and is said to be a moderate conservative. They're all in their mid to late 70's and have been at it for a long time.

    Judging (and assuming a lot) by these judges prior persuasions in other cases, the city might have to take this one to the Supreme Court. Hopefully not.
    So two liberals and a conservative...This doesn't look good for us. How do we find out about this case going to the Supreme Court. I was under the impression they only heard about a 100 cases per year

  3. #12243
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MerritMatters View Post
    So two liberals and a conservative...This doesn't look good for us. How do we find out about this case going to the Supreme Court. I was under the impression they only heard about a 100 cases per year
    Just called the Supreme Courts info line

    They hear 10,000 cases per year, but only 90 are actually argued in court. One Justice is appointed to the case when it is in the supreme court.

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx : These are the current Justices

  4. #12244
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Whose attending Tuesday?

  5. #12245
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Anybody have an report from Court this morning?

  6. #12246
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Wasn't able to make it, although I did hear ironically enough, that there was a fire drill as they were presenting their arguments.

  7. #12247
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    506

    Default

    NEW YORK (AP) -- A city lawyer has told a federal appeals panel that a judge who called New York City's Fire Department "a stubborn bastion of white male privilege" went way beyond his authority by effectively taking over the department's hiring process.

    City attorney Deborah Brenner told the three-judge federal appeals panel Tuesday that the city deserves a trial so it can show how it was trying to hire more minorities.


    A judge in Brooklyn had appointed an independent monitor to oversee the department to ensure it improved diversity hiring.


    Brenner said the judge ignored key evidence. A lawyer representing minority applicants said the judge was well within his authority to act as he did. A federal government lawyer agreed.

    A decision is unlikely for months.

  8. #12248
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GIMMEFIRE600 View Post
    NEW YORK (AP) -- A city lawyer has told a federal appeals panel that a judge who called New York City's Fire Department "a stubborn bastion of white male privilege" went way beyond his authority by effectively taking over the department's hiring process.

    City attorney Deborah Brenner told the three-judge federal appeals panel Tuesday that the city deserves a trial so it can show how it was trying to hire more minorities.


    A judge in Brooklyn had appointed an independent monitor to oversee the department to ensure it improved diversity hiring.


    Brenner said the judge ignored key evidence. A lawyer representing minority applicants said the judge was well within his authority to act as he did. A federal government lawyer agreed.

    A decision is unlikely for months.

    Decision unlikely for months? Trial?

    Not going anywhere for a while? Time to grab a snickers.

  9. #12249
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by remoray229 View Post
    Decision unlikely for months? Trial?

    Not going anywhere for a while? Time to grab a snickers.
    Although, it was in the news this shouldn't be news to you.

  10. #12250
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    533

    Default

    I think a trial would bode well for the FDNY and the city. Actual evidence might factor in at that point instead of a crazy judge rubber stamping racism.

  11. #12251
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    506

    Default

    City argues before federal appeals court that judge in FDNY race discrimination case should be removed

    Justice Department attorney defends Judge Nicholas Garaufis as 'impartial and unbaised'



    The judge who ordered the FDNY to remedy discriminatory hiring practices should be removed from the case and his decision reversed, an attorney for the city said Tuesday.

    In arguments before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, city attorney Deborah Brenner accused Brooklyn Federal Court Judge Nicholas Garaufis of losing sight of what the case was about.

    "Look at the remedy," Brenner said. "Layer after layer after layer of review because he is convinced the city is a bunch of intentional discriminators, because he is convinced the Fire Department is a bunch of intentional discriminators."

    But Justice Department attorney Lisa Stark defended Garaufis, arguing that he was an "experienced and able district judge."

    She told the appellate court that there was nothing to suggest Garaufis was "anything other than fair, open-minded, impartial and unbiased."

    The city was appealing Garaufis ruling appointing an independent monitor last October to oversee efforts to increase the numbers of black and minority firefighters.


    Previously he found the city guilty of intentional discrimination through recruitment, testing and screening that officials knew was biased against blacks and Hispanics.


    The Justice Department — and the Vulcan Society, the fraternal order of black city firefighters — had sued the FDNY over five years ago, claiming that two firefighter tests were racially biased.


    The arguments, which were interrupted for a brief period becasue of a fire drill in the courthouse, were heard by a three-judge panel which reserved decision.


    Last edited by GIMMEFIRE600; 06-26-2012 at 04:00 PM.

  12. #12252
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    506

    Default

    3 judges hear landmark FDNY discrimination case
    Tuesday, June 26, 2012

    Associated Press

    NEW YORK — A city lawyer told a federal appeals panel Tuesday that a judge who called New York City's Fire Department "a stubborn bastion of white male privilege" went way beyond his authority by effectively taking over the department's hiring process.
    In a courtroom packed with several hundred spectators, city attorney Deborah Brenner urged the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in Manhattan to return the case to a different judge in Brooklyn federal court for a trial. The court was unlikely to rule for several months.

    Her arguments were countered by Richard A. Levy, a lawyer for the Vulcan Society, an organization representing black firefighters, and Lisa J. Stark, a Justice Department lawyer. Both agreed that Judge Nicholas Garaufis was within his authority last fall when he appointed an independent monitor to oversee the recruitment, testing and hiring of new firefighters for at least 10 years.
    Garaufis took the unusual step after concluding the city had failed to ensure that enough blacks and minorities were hired. Fewer than 10 percent of the 11,200 uniformed firefighters in the city are black or Hispanic even though more than half of the city's 8 million residents identify with a racial minority group.

    The judge had called the FDNY "a stubborn bastion of white male privilege" and wrote that the persistence of discrimination was a "shameful blight on the records of the six mayors of this city who failed to take responsibility for doing what was necessary to end it."
    Brenner, though, said the judge ignored key evidence that should be studied at trial, including its efforts to improve hiring practices to boost the number of minority candidates.
    She said the city was "very cognizant of this problem and was trying to do something about it."
    Levy said the judge had staged an eight-day trial and viewed "voluminous evidence" before issuing an 82-page decision that found that city, state and federal laws against discrimination were repeatedly violated.

    "Everybody knew it was a problem," he said of hiring practices that left the department with no more than 3 percent black representation among firefighters for the last four decades.
    He wrote in court papers submitted to the appeals court that the city had refused to change its practices despite repeated complaints from many, including the Vulcan Society, the public advocate, the New York City Equal Employment Practices Commission, City Councilmembers, state and U.S. Congress representatives and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
    "These entreaties have fallen on deaf ears," Levy said.

    Brenner's arguments seemed at times to draw sympathy from Judge Jon Newman, who questioned the lawyers as to how the case could be returned to Garaufis for a full bench trial on the facts after he had spoken so strongly about his view of the facts in his written opinions.

    Stark said reassignment of such a case should occur only in extraordinary instances. She described Garaufis as "fair, open-minded, unbiased and impartial throughout the proceeding."
    She said Garaufis "not only had the authority but the duty" to enter an extensive remedy after he determined there was a pattern of discrimination. She said his rulings were supported by precedents in the federal appeals court in Manhattan and the Supreme Court.
    Brenner said Garaufis had imposed "layer after layer after layer" of reviews on the Fire Department's hiring practices.

    "Why? Because he's convinced the city is a bunch of intentional discriminators. He's convinced that the fire department is a bunch of intentional discriminators," she said.

    Tags: NY Metro | Crime & Courts | New York City



  13. #12253
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    533

    Default

    That's awesome that judge Jon Newman actually seems to be impartial and on the side of justice. He was the middle road judge we were unsure of. Anyone who was at the trail have any insight as to how the other judges reacted?

  14. #12254
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    218

    Default

    I was at the trial and here was my take on it.

    All three judges questioned both the city and the vulcans side of the case. They didnt seem to lean one way or another on any specific side. The were concerned with the city...and i was too... at how the city takes the position of not appealing the judges ruling of disparate impact. Disparate impact is the whole reason why we are here in the first place and the judges found it odd that the city was not there to appeal that part of the case... It was frustrating to understand why the city chose not to do so. Judge Newman did try and question what the difference was from the first two tests that were actually in the law suit and 6019 but the city did not go further with any facts or backing of that test which was also very frustrating bc it seemed to me like newman wondered why there was disparate impact on that, and why it cant be used.

    The judges asked the vulcans if they ever knew a case where a bench trial would go back to the exact judge (Garaufis) to hear all the facts and make a new (or same) ruling on the case. Obviously the vulcans side did not know of any case bc there is in fact no case that it has happened. The judge then asked if it would be fair for garaufis to preside over the bench trial and the vulcnas said yes it would be because he knows facts and is familiar since he is been on this from the get go. The judges didnt really like the idea of bringing it back to the same ruler.


    All in all there wasnt much progress made and each side took way to long for any cross appeal of the closing arguments. I must say that there were many African americans who were there and you know what they all had in common? They are all FDNY Firefighters. It is pretty sad to say that these guys are on the job and looking for back pay when the only people who got screwed on this whole law suit was the guys and gals on 6019 who were intentionallyu discriminated against by the judge.

    Lets pray for an overturn or a bench/jury trial buit this is still far from over.

  15. #12255
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    506

    Default

    Thanks for the insight, the disparate impact question is mind boggling and frustrating as you said. It makes it look as if all the city cares about is money, which is most likely a factual assessment.

  16. #12256
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GIMMEFIRE600 View Post
    Thanks for the insight, the disparate impact question is mind boggling and frustrating as you said. It makes it look as if all the city cares about is money, which is most likely a factual assessment.
    If you read the 30-page written appeal that was submitted, they were not going to challenge disparate impact from the start. Instead, they cited some other cases as legal precedent where disparate impact was present, but not considered sole grounds for proof of discrimination.

    Disparate impact was negated in a case where extensive recruitment efforts were used to attract minorities, where the questions on the exam were designed solely to evaluate qualities relevant to being able to perform the job and there were one or two more cited cases that nullified disparate impact. The city claims that based on precedent, their efforts in the recruitment and administration of this exam were enough to nullify disparate impact.

  17. #12257
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    533

    Default

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1108828

    Just once I want to hear news about this situation that doesn't make me wanna flip my desk over.

  18. #12258
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River6019 View Post
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1108828

    Just once I want to hear news about this situation that doesn't make me wanna flip my desk over.
    Feel the same way....my weekend's officially been ruined.

  19. #12259
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    218

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by River6019 View Post
    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1108828

    Just once I want to hear news about this situation that doesn't make me wanna flip my desk over.

    I cant believe the papers,,,city is not FLIPPING OUT ABOUT THIS.......its like noone even cares....this **** should be getting crushed in the papers....yet somehow they want to spin it in the schmoozes direction.....

    unbelievable

  20. #12260
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    64

    Default

    I recieved this email today, here it is for the ones that didn't get it.

    All of us should fill out this one page objection form, because of you don't, you can't say anything for the remaining future of this whole litigation. Deadline to submit this form is August 24th. "Making an objection is voluntary, but if you do not object at this time, you will not. absent good cause, be able to oppose the awards ordered by the Court in the future."

    Dear Exam 2000/2500 Applicants:

    This letter is to notify you of a Proposed Relief Order in United States and Vulcan Society, et al. v. City of New York, Civil Action No. 07-cv-2067. You are receiving this notice because the City of New York's records indicate that you took Written Examination 2000 or 2500.

    Written Exams 2000/2500 were developed under the supervision of the court in this lawsuit. They are not the basis of the underlying lawsuit or the upcoming Fairness Hearing, both of which concern Firefighter Exam No. 7029 (primarily administered in 1999) and Exam No. 2043 (primarily administered in 2002). However, because the Proposed Relief Order includes terms relating to the hiring of new firefighters, we are notifying you of the terms of the Proposed Relief Order and providing you with an opportunity to object to the order before it is entered.

    Below please find a link to a document entitled "NOTICE OF PROPOSED RELIEF ORDER AND FAIRNESS HEARING." This document describes the basis of the lawsuit and the terms of the Proposed Relief Order. In addition, the document provides the time and place of a Fairness Hearing regarding the Proposed Relief Order and tells you how to make an objection to the terms of the Proposed Relief Order if you choose to do so. Please read the document carefully as your right to object to the Proposed Relief Order or participate in the Fairness Hearing may be affected.


    Link to: NOTICE OF PROPOSED RELIEF ORDER AND FAIRNESS HEARING

    http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcas/downloa...lief_Order.pdf

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. FDNY Test 6019-Union Square Protest
    By exp1isastreet in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-26-2010, 10:31 PM
  2. List #6019
    By ffbam24 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 08:59 PM
  3. FDNY List #6019
    By MailBox123 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-22-2007, 06:54 PM
  4. FDNY Exam #6019????
    By HouyBoy in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-11-2007, 10:50 AM
  5. FDNY Exam #6019-John Jay College Forum
    By exp1isastreet in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-22-2007, 03:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts