# Bradley, ET AL. V. Comm.



## Redleg13D (May 19, 2007)

This case has been all over the civil service web page, and I finally took the time to look at it, basically (at least at initial appearance) it is a handout for minorities... Anyone know if there is more to this than meets the eye? I really hope I totally misunderstood this case!

Basically it states than a minority applicant may be hired (at the top of the list) off of the 2003/2005 PO exam, and off the 2002/2004 FF exam. Not only that, but are entitled to back pay?!?

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=hrdterm...=cs_legalnotice_bradley_legalnotice&csid=Ehrd


----------



## JLT770 (Jun 7, 2007)

why are they still taking people off the 2003 list? and whats this with backpay?


----------



## redsox03 (Jan 6, 2007)

Hey they earned it, they are born that way!


----------



## Vindicated (Apr 29, 2007)

This has been all over the local newspapers.

In short, if you are a minority, were eligible to be hired and were not, you go to the top of the list. If you pass the background, PAT, etc, the municipality *MUST* hire you before all others.

The reason given is that the test was discriminatory towards minorities.


----------



## JLT770 (Jun 7, 2007)

wow, in every community that uses civil service?


----------



## AFCOP (Jan 30, 2005)

Redleg13D said:


> This case has been all over the civil service web page, and I finally took the time to look at it, basically (at least at initial appearance) it is a handout for minorities... Anyone know if there is more to this than meets the eye? I really hope I totally misunderstood this case!
> 
> Basically it states than a minority applicant may be hired (at the top of the list) off of the 2003/2005 PO exam, and off the 2002/2004 FF exam. Not only that, but are entitled to back pay?!?


And to think some people give us [vets] shit for claiming veterans preference in hiring... Then you see things like this... I think all the Vets that have been bypassed should band together and file a discriminatory class action to be hired....


----------



## redsox03 (Jan 6, 2007)

AFCOP said:


> And to think some people give us [vets] shit for claiming veterans preference in hiring... Then you see things like this... I think all the Vets that have been bypassed should band together and file a discriminatory class action to be hired....


You aint kidding man. This BS is amazing. Pfffffffff.


----------



## Rocco39 (Jul 13, 2007)

*Here's my ramblings on the subject. First, *

_"As a result of a recent court decision and settlement agreement reached in the case of BRADLEY, ET AL. V. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-10213-PBS, *certain candidates *who took the 2002 or 2004 entry-level civil service firefighter examination, or the 2003 or 2005 entry-level civil service police officer examination *may be entitled to be considered for hiring in the next round of hiring as a police officer or firefighter in the respective city or town where you applied."*_

*This is the direct quote in the header of the CS legal notice update page. While I too am concerned that, as a resident Vet with some LE experience as well, I may be bypased because of the this court decision. However, my take on the language of the settlement is that it does not seem to be as broad a brush as at first glance. The next quote is directly from the civil action case notice....*

_"_*if you still seek to be hired, your name will be placed at the top of the current civil service examination list in the town or city where you sought to be hired in 2002, 2003, 2004, or 2005, and if you are successful in the hiring process and are hired..."*

*Common sense dictates that, while there will be individuals that get a card from CS on behalf of a prospective department (especially the larger municipalities) b/c of this decision, they still have to pass all of the prerequisite requirements (backround checks/BOP/CORI, boards, PAT etc.) to get past the goalie, so to speak. *

*In short, it's not a "show up at that the front desk and pick up your gun and badge" proposition. Hopefully, in spite of this decision AND most importantly, for the sake of the Cities and Towns who might be saddled with potentionally incompetent and/or underqualified candidates, the respective departments will complete a very thorough hiring procedure, and not just bow to pressure, percieved or real, after all, the court decision is not a "free pass" just an 2nd chance.*

*Keep the faith. *


----------



## Redleg13D (May 19, 2007)

The big issue I see is why is ANYONE from the 2003 & 2005 exam is able to be appointed at all. Doesn't this undermine hiring from the "same" exam.

Thunder and Blazes! ROLL the circus music!


----------



## csauce777 (Jan 10, 2005)

Rocco39 said:


> * after all, the court decision is not a "free pass" just an 2nd chance.*


BULLSHIT is what the court decision is.

In fact...while we're at it, I think any minorities who *WERE *hired as a result of those "discriminatory" tests should be immediately promoted to Captain and given appropriate back pay. Give me a F*ckin' break...

So the minorities who took the test and werent hired are given another shot because the test was discriminatory, but the white folks who took the test are shit out of luck because they must just be stupid not to have scored high enough to get hired. Thats what this ruling says to me. Ridiculous...


----------



## Rocco39 (Jul 13, 2007)

You miss my point csauce777, its not that I agree with the court decision, what's done is done. Is it fair to those who took the test and scored high? Absolutely not. Is crying about the decision gonna change it? Fat F*cking Chance! As for undermining others on the list with higher scores than the minority candidates, yeah that sucks for them. While some of the minority candidates will undoubtedly get hired, others will not and some non-minorities will also get a chance off of the '07" list. This loophole can and hopefully will be closed at the time of interview/hiring process if the candidates have legitimate issues that preclude them from being considered. The Muni's aren't going to be pleased hiring under qualified candidates and this does'nt force them to hire them, it forces them to consider them 1st.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Nothing will be changed as long as the leftist liberals are in power in MA.


----------



## redsox03 (Jan 6, 2007)

How was the test "discriminatory"? It must of been because you had to get questions right to get a better score, and thats just not fair.:mrgreen:


----------



## Gil (Jun 15, 1998)

2003 or 2005 entry-level civil service police officer examination may be entitled to be considered for hiring in the next round of hiring as a police officer

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As a result of a recent court decision and settlement agreement reached in the case of BRADLEY, ET AL. V. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, ET AL., U.S. DISTRICT COURT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-10213-PBS, certain candidates who took the 2002 or 2004 entry-level civil service firefighter examination, or the 2003 or 2005 entry-level civil service police officer examination may be entitled to be considered for hiring in the next round of hiring as a police officer or firefighter in the respective city or town where you applied.

DISTRICT COURT, CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-10213-PBS.

As a result of a recent court decision and settlement agreement reached in the case

of Bradley, et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., U.S. District Court, Civil Action

No. 05-CV-10213-PBS, certain minority candidates who took the 2002 or 2004 entry-level

civil service firefighter examination, or the 2003 or 2005 entry-level civil service police officer

examination may be entitled to be reconsidered for hiring as a police officer or firefighter in

the respective city or town where you applied, and if hired, you may be entitled to back

pay/compensation. In order to ensure that you obtain this relief, both for compensation

and/or hiring, it is important that you fill out the enclosed claim form (which will be used

solely for the purposes of obtaining relief from you in this case) and this form will be used to

notify the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Human Resources Division of your interest in

being considered for hire as a police officer or firefighter.

In the case of Bradley, et al. v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et al., U.S. District

Court, Civil Action No. 05-CV-10213-PBS, the Federal District Court has found that the

entry-level examination for firefighters given by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may

have had a disparate impact on minority candidates and, as a result, there may have been

qualified minority candidates who were not reached for consideration as a firefighter, or

hired, because of their examination score. Further, if the entry-level examination had not

had a disparate impact, you have been identified as one of the individuals whose name may

have been reached for consideration and hire.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement (which is intended to

effectuate and further the court's rulings and apply those rulings to the 2003 and 2005

police officer exams, as well as the 2002 and 2004 firefighter exams), if you still seek to be

hired, your name will be placed at the top of the current civil service examination list in the

town or city where you sought to be hired in 2002, 2003, 2004, or 2005, and if you are

successful in the hiring process and are hired, you will be entitled to back pay in the

approximate amount of $18,750 (minus required withholdings and deductions). A copy of

the proposed settlement agreement, made as a result of the court's decision, is attached

hereto for your convenience.

You are further advised that you have the right to object to this settlement agreement

and may do so by contacting the attorneys for the plaintiffs at the address set forth below.

In addition, should you have any questions or concerns, you may contact Lisa Fortin at the

address stated below, or you may communicate with plaintiffs' attorneys through email at

the email address set forth below. If you require further information, you should contact Lisa

Fortin at Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan by email at [email protected].

Harold L. Lichten

Shannon Liss-Riordan

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.

18 Tremont St., Ste. 500

Boston, MA 02108

(617) 367-7200


----------



## MPDReserve (Jan 14, 2007)

All this new crap doesn't do a lot for that old argument that "all men are created equal". Also, I wonder if in places where "minorities" are the majority, are they willing to take a back seat to all the "European-Americans" that feel they should have the job first? I doubt it.


----------



## Mitpo62 (Jan 13, 2004)

Forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is a "disparate impact?"


----------



## Sgt K (Mar 31, 2004)

Definitions of *Disparate Impact* on the Web:


is an employment policy or practice, while neutral on its face, adversely impacts against a particular racial, ethnic or sex group. ...
www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/~civilr/glossary.htm

Under Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) law, a less favorable effect for one group than for another. A disparate impact results when rules applied to all employees have a different and more inhibiting effect on women and minority groups than on the majority. ...
www.va.gov/dmeeo/glossary.htm

Employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but have a significantly adverse effect on a protected group when compared with others.
www.sru.edu/pages/4677.asp


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

redsox03 said:


> How was the test "discriminatory"? It must of been because you had to get questions right to get a better score, and thats just not fair.:mrgreen:


In a nutshell...

It was discriminatory because, although the "typing" was black, the paper was white.


----------



## Macop (May 2, 2002)

I agree the court descision was a very bad one. My question to some of you is do you now hate all minorities Police and FF, or does it matter when they were hired if you hate them or not. Are you now going to look at every minority Officer and hate them, even thought they may have been hired the old fashioned way, cause they deserved it, or are you just gonna make it easier and hate then all?


----------



## 94c (Oct 21, 2005)

Macop said:


> I agree the court descision was a very bad one. My question to some of you is do you now hate all minorities Police and FF, or does it matter when they were hired if you hate them or not. Are you now going to look at every minority Officer and hate them, even thought they may have been hired the old fashioned way, cause they deserved it, or are you just gonna make it easier and hate then all?


The only probable "hate" would come from those that are trying to get on the job also. Those that already have a job could probably care less since it doesn't affect them.


----------



## MPDReserve (Jan 14, 2007)

Gil said:


> ...entry-level examination for firefighters given by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may
> 
> have had a disparate impact on minority candidates and, as a result, there may have been
> 
> ...


No, they were not qualified. The reason being is that the initial measure of qualification at the time was the CS exam. Those who did not pass should not be considered qualified for any CS job. If they chose to spend some time suing to get the test changed and then passed the new measure of qualification, then they could be considered qualified candidates.


----------



## Redleg13D (May 19, 2007)

Macop said:


> I agree the court descision was a very bad one. My question to some of you is do you now hate all minorities Police and FF, or does it matter when they were hired if you hate them or not. Are you now going to look at every minority Officer and hate them, even thought they may have been hired the old fashioned way, cause they deserved it, or are you just gonna make it easier and hate then all?


I would not hate them. However, I will admit that if I was serving with a recently hired minority the thought of special treatment will be in the back of my mind. This is why such a measure proves to be more of a disservice to both the applicant and his department.

The only people who benefit from this are the "equal rights" lobbyists who can say they "won".


----------



## Macop (May 2, 2002)

Well said Redleg, I agree. It seems SOME minorities that are suing to get jobs are gonna create a bad name for themselves and others who have been on the job well before any of this shit started.


----------



## soup (Nov 1, 2006)

The common remedy in any bypass appeal is for the candidate to be placed at the top of the eligible candidates list. I am surprised at the back pay deal. I would think this sets a precedent for future appeals.


----------



## csauce777 (Jan 10, 2005)

Ok...I've always wondered...

If your family were immigrants from South Africa (and likely have a "pale" complexion), can you claim you are an "african-american" for affirmative action or other such protections, or is it only reserved for deeply tanned folks?


----------

