Sonia Sotomayor: Judge or advocate?

Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by the president to be a justice on the US Supremee Court: Will she be a judge (the way I think it's supposed to be) or an advocate for her pet causes:

Here's some back up on my fears:

Judge Sotomayor’s handling of the firefighters claims’ of unfair treatment in the Ricci case have been widely criticized, both for the perfunctory and peculiar way in which she handled the matter and for the quota-driven decisions her ruling would allow in the workplace. Her view of the law in this case was also consistent with the positions she took in conjunction with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF). In numerous cases, the PRLDEF organization, for which Judge Sotomayor held senior positions as a top policy maker and was actively involved, led litigation efforts to offer and deny promotions to city workers based solely on race – much like in the New Haven case. During part of this time, Judge Sotomayor was even the Chairperson of PRLDEF’s Litigation Committee. These cases include the following:

· In Hispanic Society of the Department of Sanitation v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Sanitation, PRLDEF represented the plaintiffs “in regard to a claim that the Supervisor Examination has a severe disparate impact upon Hispanic test-takers.” PRLDEF claimed that “Hispanics comprised 5.2% of the test-takers and only 3.8% of the passers[.]”

· In Hispanic Society v. New York City Police Department, PRLDEF represented Hispanic police officers “challenging the examination of sergeant in the New York City Police Department as discriminatory and not job related.” The settlement “provid[ed] for positions of sergeant consistent with the percentage of Hispanic test-takers.” PRLDEF used litigation to force an employer to employ a quota-based hiring scheme.

o “In one case against the New York City Police Department, ‘we obtained quota promotions for Latinos and African Americans to the rank of sergeant,’ the group said in a May 1992 report.” (“Sotomayor Helped Push Minority Cases,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/2/09)

· In Hispanic Police Society v. New York City Civil Service Commission, PRLDEF represented the plaintiffs in a “Title VII employment discrimination case challenging the validity of the examination for lieutenant in the New York City Police Department.” The settlement allowed “plaintiffs the opportunity to participate in the preparation of a new lieutenants test.” PRLDEF used litigation to invalidate a standardized test.

· In Guardians Association v. New York City Civil Service Commission, PRLDEF challenged “seven examinations for police officers given from 1968 through 1970.” After successful litigation and subsequent appeals, “Hispanic and Black police officers who sat for the challenged examinations are entitled to at least the median date of appointment from those examinations as well as backpay.”

o The Supreme Court reversed, holding the minority officers were not entitled to compensation in the absence of showing intentional discrimination. PRLDEF had argued that the “conclusion that proof of discriminatory impact is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in employment ignores the language of the statute, the legislative history, and the agency regulations . . .”

Other PRLDEF Cases Similar To Ricci Include:

· In 1981, PRLDEF “eliminated” the use of the Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE), a standardized examination for federal employment, to fill positions within 120 job categories (Luevano v. Campbell). PRLDEF reached that goal by initiating litigation and then entering into a settlement that called for the elimination of the examination. As part of this settlement, the Federal government “agreed to use alternate hiring programs to insure that the percentage of persons obtaining the positions is equal to the percentage of minority test-takers.”

· A report documenting the litigation history of PRLDEF from 1982 to 1987 explained why the organization’s “more recent class action litigation has involved public employment. The reasons are obvious. First, because hiring and promotion are based on civil service examinations, class actions are clearly appropriate to challenge the disparate impact caused by those examinations . . . .”

· The 1982-87 report also discussed PRLDEF’s strategy of using some settlements to try to alter the content and use of examinations: “Being an insider gives us the advantage of helping shape the examination and training process to help eliminate adverse impact. Our expert has a great deal of leverage. If he recommends something and the City does not follow his recommendation, we are in a good position to challenge the examination if there are adverse results . . . . The strategy so far has been successful . . . . [A]s insiders, we have forced the City away from strict rank ordering of test results.”

· The 1982-87 report also summarized:

o A challenge to “the United States Postal Service in Connecticut that involves entry level tests.” (Osorio v. Tisch).

o A successful effort to “set aside an examination for Counselors in the New York City Division of Youth.” (Hispanic Coalition v. Valenti).

Sotomayor’s Accion Puertorriquena Charged Princeton With A “‘Lack Of Commitment’ In Hiring Puerto Rican And Chicano” Faculty & Administrators

A Group Sotomayor Chaired At Princeton Filed A Complaint Against The University Over The “Lack Of Commitment” In Recruiting Puerto Rican And Chicano Administrators, Faculty And Students. “Accion Puertorriquena and the Chicano Organization of Princeton have filed a complaint with the New York office of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), charging the university with a ‘lack of commitment’ in hiring Puerto Rican and Chicano administrators and faculty and recruiting students from these minority groups. While Provost Hackney, the university’s Affirmative Action officer, denied the charges yesterday, he admitted ‘we can make better efforts in the future.’ He added that university’s new Affirmative Action plan, now being drafted, will ‘reflect our renewed commitment.’” (David Liemer, “Latin Student Groups Assail University Hiring Performance,” The Daily Princetonian, 4/22/74)

· In 1974, Sotomayor Wrote A Letter To The Editor Of The Daily Princetonian Regarding The Complaint, Citing The Lack Of Puerto Rican And Chicano Faculty, Students And Courses. “On April 18, 1974, the Puerto Rican and Chicano students of Princeton filed a complaint with HEW charging the university with an institutional pattern of discrimination. The facts of the complaint are these: 1) There is not one Puerto Rican or Chicano administrator or faculty member in the university; 2) There are two million Puerto Ricans in the United States and two and a half million more on the island itself. Yet there were only 66 Puerto Rican applicants this year, and only 31 Puerto Rican students on campus. While there are 12 million Chicanos in the United States, there were only 111 Chicano applicants and 27 students on campus this year; 3) Not one permanent course in this university now deals in any notable detail with the Puerto Rican or Chicano cultures.” (“Letter To The Editor: Anti-Latino Discrimination At Princeton,” The Daily Princetonian, 5/10/74)

Technorati tags: affirmative action law legal SCOTUS news connecticut sotomayor