LexMonitor | Discussion regarding http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

U.S. Supreme Court Rules for White Firefighters Over Promotions

dbarbati@pralaw.com (dbarbati@pralaw.com) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:50:21 GMT

On June 29, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the Court said in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional. “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the Court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters “understandably attract this court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have persons received promotions in preference to them.” Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg’s dissent, which she read aloud in Court.

The decision had its origins in New Haven’s need to fill vacancies for lieutenants and captains in its fire department. It hired an outside firm to design a test, which was given to 77 candidates for lieutenant and 41 candidates for captain. Fifty six firefighters passed the exams, including 41 whites, 22 blacks and 18 hispanics. Of those, only 17 whites and two whites could expect promotion.

The city eventually decided to not use the exam to determine promotions. It said it acted because it might have been vulnerable to claims that the exam had a “disparate impact” on minorities in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The white firefighters said the decision violated the same law’s protection on intentional discrimination.

The city declined to validate the test after it was given, a step that could have identified flaws or determined that there were no serious problems with it. In addition, city officials could not say what was wrong with the test, other than the racially skewed results.

Justice Kennedy said, “The city could be liable for disparate-impact discrimination only if the examinations were not job related” or the city failed to use a less discriminatory alternative. We conclude that there is no strong basis in evidence to establish that the test was deficient in either of these respects.”

Alternatively, Ginsburg said the court should have assessed “the starkly disparate results” of the exams against the backdrop of historical and ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department. As of 2003, she said, only one of the city’s 21 fire captains was African-American.

Until this decision, Ginsburg said, the civil rights law’s prohibitions on intentional discrimination and disparate impact were complimentary, both aimed at ending workplace discrimination. “Today’s decision sets these paired directives at odds,” she said.

Importance of Changing Your Beneficiary on Retirement Accounts

stevens@stevensfirm.com (J. Benjamin Stevens) — Thu, 28 May 2009 05:05:54 GMT

Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court issued an important decision that potentially affects family law cases all across the country. In Kennedy v. DuPont, the Court resolved a dispute between an ex-wife and the her ex-husband's daughter over the proceeds of a savings and investment plan (SIP) that was an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefit plan.

The lesson to be learned from this case is that if you divorce, you must change your designated beneficiary forms under any pension and/or retirement plan covered by ERISA. You need to actually make the change yourself (in accordance with the rules set forth by your employer), and you cannot simply rely on a waiver of benefits in your Divorce Decree or Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). If you fail to change the beneficiary form, it could result in unintended consequences at your death - such as your former spouse getting your benefits!

Source: "U.S. Supreme Court Says Ex-Wife Gets Pension Benefits" by Robert Kisselburgh, published at his Mississippi Family Law Blog.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case About Meddling International Union

dewestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:00:00 GMT

The US Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case asking just how much international unions will be allowed to meddle in the affairs of their local affiliates. In Granite Rock v. Teamsters, the employer sued the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in federal court claiming that the International interfered with the relationship between the employer and the Local Teamsters union.

In Granite, the employer and the Local had reached a tentative new agreement which contained a no-strike clause. The employer alleged that the Local ratified the agreement and then engaged in a strike. Apparently a high ranking official of the International was the motivating force behind the strike. The 9th Circuit held that the employer could not sue the International because the agreement was between the employer and the Local, and did not involve the International. The Supreme Court granted cert and will hear the case, perhaps recognizing that international unions are often working behind the scenes with their local unions.

The Court will probably not hear the case until the 2010 session, and it could be some time before an opinion is issued. It is not uncommon for employers to have good relationships with local unions. Sometimes those relationships are strained through pressure from out-of-town international union officials. Currently, international unions are somewhat insulated from liability for meddling in negotiations and other ongoing business relationships between local unions and employers. Ultimately, this decision could open a new legal avenue for employers to hold international unions accountable for their actions.

Massachusetts Crime Lab Technicians Must Testify In Person At Criminal Trials, U. S. Supreme Court Says

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:48:56 GMT

In a ruling affecting a wide variety of criminal law cases in Massachusetts, especially drug crimes, the U.S Supreme Court has ruled that lab reports offered as evidence by prosecutors will henceforth require the in-person testimony of lab technicians at trial.

The landmark ruling had its origins in a routine Suffolk Superior Court drug prosecution taking place in 2002, and made its way all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In that Suffolk Superior Court trial, prosecutors sought to introduce lab certificates accompanying two batches of drugs recovered by police in the case. The defendant’s defense attorney objected, citing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that these types of reports fall within the “Confrontation Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. The Confrontation Clause requires the appearance of live witnesses against a defendant in a criminal prosecution, as the Court ruled in the 2004 case Crawford v. Washington.

The judge hearing the case at that time, then-Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Rouse, overruled the defense objection, and allowed the lab certificates to be admitted into evidence pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 111, Sections 12 and 13, which requires the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to “make … a chemical analysis of any narcotic drug … when submitted to it by police authorities … provided, that it is satisfied that the analysis is to be used for the enforcement of law.” Section 13 states that the “presentation of such certificate to the court by any police officer … shall be prima facie evidence that all the requirements [of section 12] have been complied with.”

At trial, prosecutors introduced the lab reports asserting that the substance inside the bags that were recovered by police was cocaine. The lab technicians who wrote the report did not appear as witnesses at trial. Without success, the defendant’s lawyer objected to the reports being allowed as evidence, arguing that the unavailability of the laboratory technicians who wrote the lab reports, for cross-examination, violated the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause. No luck: The defendant was convicted and sentenced to a three-year to three-year-plus-one-day state prison term.

In an unpublished decision, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the Superior Court Judge’s ruling, and later the Supreme Judicial Court denied review without comment. The defendant then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for review, and the case was accepted for review (very, very few cases are accepted by the court for review.) In a 5-4 ruling authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court reversed the conviction.
Scalia wrote, “Under our decision in Crawford v. Washington, the (laboratory) analysts’ affidavits were testimonial statements, and the analysts were ‘witnesses’ for purposes of the Sixth Amendment. Absent a showing that the analysts were unavailable to testify at trial and that [the defendant] had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them, [the defendant] was entitled to ‘be confronted with’ the analysts at trial.” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the dissenting opinion, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who personally argued the case, said she was “very disappointed” with the decision. “It is particularly disappointing that the majority failed to appreciate that its ruling today will significantly burden our ability to prosecute countless drug cases in the Commonwealth’s courts,” she said. Although we are still reviewing the implications of today’s decision, our office is prepared to work with other law enforcement officials in the Commonwealth to adjust our practices to comply with this new constitutional rule while still holding accountable those who violate our drug laws.”

As a Massachusetts drug crimes defense lawyer, I believe this U.S. Supreme Court ruling to be the fair and correct one. I acknowledge that producing laboratory technicians, in-person, for every criminal trial where they are needed, will be cumbersome and at times difficult. But it is a superior option to trumping the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.