So the ruling from the courts was that the city had a "rational basis", which was their assumption that higher IQ applicants may get bored and leave shortly after the city incurs all the training costs.
How is that ANY different than a fast food restaurant refusing to hire a black person because statistics show that they are disproportionally arrested and convicted for violent offenses, so they form a "rational basis" that blacks are more likely to act out violently at work? Ridiculous.
The one thing the court got right, and it was mentioned in the report, was that this guy wasn't discriminated against when compared to the rest of the applicant pool - they all had the same criteria. ALL OF THEM with high IQs were discriminated against.
There are lawsuits all over the country about civil service (police and fire, mostly) promotional processes being biased against blacks because they contain a test component that blacks have traditionally done poorly with. Everyone who applies is given the same test, and the material is subject matter relevant, yet blacks who sue are basically suing on the grounds that they are not smart enough (as an ethnic group) to pass the test, thus it's unfair. And they're WINNING some of the lawsuits.
It's just another clear indication that politicians and judiciary officials are not concerned with discrimination issues unless they have to deal with gender or minority races, and even then sometimes they're afraid to rule in against the suit for fear of being labeled a "racist" or "sexist" person.
| 
07-13-2013, 12:09 PM
Linear Mode
