NAACP v. North Hudson Fire & Rescue PDF

Preview

Summary

NAACP v. North Hudson Fire & Rescue...

Description

Liu 1

Sophia Liu Professor Debbie Kaminer LAW 3123 02 March 2021

Case Question Assignment NAACP v. North Hudson Fire & Rescue 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide? NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire Rescue deals with a geography based discrimination in the hiring process in order to fill in vacancies of positions dealing with civil service. The United States District Court for the district of New Jersey held that residency requirements are invalid because it has a disparate impact on African American applicants. This appeal is under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, amended in 1991. 2. How should the “relevant labor market” be defined in a case like this? What was the evidence that the residency requirement had a disparate impact on African Americans? a. The expert report, as provided by Dr. Richard Wright to establish their prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination, identifies that most people living within a ten mile radius of North Hudson’s center would have no more than a 29 minute commute. Wright argues North Hudson could reasonably be expected to find employees statewide as applicants tend to search statewide for applicants. Wright then goes on to say that even the neighboring three county area would be a reasonable search radius for applicants. b. The report also identifies that in the tri-county area, 37.4% of protective service positions are held by African Americans, and statewide being 20%. Based on

Liu 2

standard deviations, there is virtually no probability that African Americans are severely underrepresented in North Hudson ‘by chance’. Ergo, the source of underrepresentation is, more than likely, caused by discriminatory hiring practices. 3. What reasons did the employer offer for having a residency requirement? Why were these insufficient to show business necessity? The employer argued that it is imperative for applicants to be familiar with local geography. The employer also argued that choosing applicants that meet the residency requirement are more likely to be bilingual. NHRFR cannot prove that the residency requirement is necessary in order for successful performances of firefighter job functions and therefore, insufficient to show business necessity. 4. What are the practical implications of this decision for public employers? Should they impose residency requirements at all? Would they be better off with stricter residency requirements (i.e., residency is required for both applicants and current employees) with more lenient policies (i.e, residency is preferred, but not required)? If residency requirements were to be imposed, it must be lenient. The NHRFR essentially created a ‘private job’ to a ‘closed community’ with its strict implementation of residency requirements. A statewide search of applicants would not only increase opportunities for African Americans to be properly represented, but would increase opportunities for the entire population of New Jersey, of any sex, gender, or race. 5. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not? Regardless of intentional harm or not, Wright proves that a residency requirement, as imposed by the NHRFR, does not support minimum firefighter qualifications, ergo an insufficient business

Liu 3

necessity. The decision made in this case, in my opinion, had the best outcome. The NHRFR argues that bilingual speakers who also know their local geography would be ideal, however, there are plenty of alternatives that do not result in discrimination, such as ‘residency is preferred - but not required’.

EEOC v. Target Corp. 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide? The legal issue that resides in this case against Target was founded by EEOC. They found Target to be violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by allowing race discrimination against African-Americans who are applying for managerial positions. The appeals court decided that the summary judgement was impropert for these applicants' individual claims. Which led to Target having to compensate Kalisha White,Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley. 2. What are the obligations of employers regarding the retention of records related to recruiting? Which problems does the court identify with Target’s record retention practices? Under Title VII, the obligation of employers regarding the retention of records related to recruiting is that the employers are required to “make and keep such records relevant to the determinations of whether unlawful employment practice have been or are being committed.” They require that the documents related to the applicant are retained for one year. The problems that the court identified with Target’s record retention practices are: recruiters are getting rid of personal records that are supposed to be retained solely because they did not know they must be kept, in this case to specifically, Matthew Armiger admitted to “throwing out the resumes of applicants he deemed unqualified, including those of White, Edgeston and Brown-Easley”,

Liu 4

claiming he did so to protect the applicants’ privacy. 3. What is the evidence that the store team leader Armiger was aware of the race of the applicants? That race was a factor in the applicants not receiving interviews? The evidence that the store team leader Armiger was aware of the race of the applicants provided was that he read and understood the information provided in the resume; not only did he understand, he seemed to have done research on it to understand the involvement and activities of such sorority. On White’s resume, she indicated that she was a member of Alpha Kappa Alpha, which Armiger testified to have known it to be an African-American sorority. Same situation applied to Edgeston because she too indicated she was a member of the same sorority on her resume, and she mentioned that she majored in African-American studies. Lastly, all of these recruitment came from a multicultural career fair at school. Race must have been a factor to the applicants not receiving an interview because Armiger claims to have been too busy to manage his duties and too busy to speak to the applicants but after a short period, Armiger scheduled an interview for a fictitious Caucasian applicant. 4. What changes would you recommend to Target’s recruiting and hiring practices? What should the role of the store managers be? Target should review all applicants based on skills, achievements, work history, etc,. There is absolutely no reason to reject a person’s work potential based off of race. There is also the choice of having an increase of hiring managers, ergo more than three, to avoid biases and discrimination, all voting to pass or reject an application with majority rule. The role of the store managers would be to encourage workers and fill their needs to work beyond the physical features of a team member....