Analyzing NAACP v
. North Hudson Fire: Discrimination Insights
School
Pes College Of Engineering**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
COMPUTER S 1234
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 10, 2024
Pages
3
Uploaded by MagistrateHerringMaster633
Summarize textParaphrase textNAACP V. NORTH HUDSON REGIONAL FIRE & RESCUE1Running Head:NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire & RescueName:University:NAACP V. NORTH HUDSON REGIONAL FIRE & RESCUE2The case against North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue an extremely thorough analysis wasconducted by the judge of reports by experts and facts whose relies was mostly on discriminatoryeffects that had proof that was statistical. Disparities were identified between the percentages ofAfrican Americans that were qualified in relation to the labor market by the Plaintiff. This paperwill offer an analysis of NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue.1.The issues that are legal in the case of NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescuewas the validity of a residency prerequisite for candidates for firefighting that wasimposed by North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescue and whether the stipulations thatwere put in place were a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 considering that it wasrevised in 1991. The determination of the District Court was appealed by the NorthHudson Regional Fire & Rescue which concluded that the hiring practice of NorthHudson that required the people applying for the jobs to be residents of North Hudsonwas discriminatory because it mostly affected African Americans being hired asfirefighters (Walsh, 2016). The United States District Court for the District of New Jerseysaid that the prerequisite for residency was unenforceable due to the fact that it had aneffect that was disproportionate on candidates that were African Americans.
The appellate court made a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, the NAACP that the NorthHudson Regional Fire & Rescue policy requirements for residency were a discriminationagainst African Americans. Additionally, the appellate court did not agree that borderrecruitment of the candidates would be discriminating against Hispanics in NorthHudson.2.In a case like this the “relevant labor market” should be expressed in a case that iscomparable to this as the entire New Jersey state or the three county areas that areneighboring. The evidence that the prerequisite for residency had an impact that isNAACP V. NORTH HUDSON REGIONAL FIRE & RESCUE opposing on African Americans was gotten from reports of experts. That substantiationshowed that the area of tri-county of Hudson, Essex, and Bergen had the total number offirefighters that was of 37.4%. There was an establishment by the court that in NorthHudson Regional firefighters need to be 121 in number. Reports by experts showed thatthere was a percentage that was 20% of firefighters that were African Americans. Thecourt made a conclusion that there is a need for African American firefighters to be 65 innumber in the North Hudson area while looking at that rate. The Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission report was reviewed by the court showed that out of a total 302North Hudson Regional firefighters, the white non-Hispanics were 240, Hispanics were58, and the African Americans were only 2.3.The reasons that the employer offered for having a residency requirement was a necessityfor a business that the court had rejected. The assertion was rejected by the court becauseresiding in North Hudson was not a “mandatory minimum requirement” when it comes tothe awareness of the geography that is local, a response time that is rapid, or a force thatis bilingual of firefighters (Heinis, 2011). The court also found that discriminatoryalternatives that were fewer which means accomplishing the objectives that were notbeing seen. The condition of residency did not give a guarantee that firefighters need tolive in North Hudson boroughs once they have been employed.
4.The practical implications of the decision for public employers are that the causal linksthat are possible can be established for the concern of conditions for residency for hiringand candidates disparity for the minority. In this case, the court was able to find thatconstraints like those ones were not attached to qualifications that were minimum foremployment, and the options for discriminations were less. They will not be better offwith residency requirements that are stricter because it will be a way of enhancingdiscrimination for instance when the residency is needed for people applying for the jobs and the peoplethat are currently employed by the company. If there will be more lenient policies, there can be a possibility of people who are illegal working for the company.5.I do agree with the decision that was made by the appellate court in the findings for the plaintiffs. In this given case, the facts and information that is statistical that was given bythe experts on behalf of the plaintiffs did not have a chance of being dismissed. If a business has an impartial policy that is facially that has been discovered to have a bearing that is disparate on a given class that is protected, the business will need to be ready in order to give substantial business necessity arguments to give room for an analysis that is close. The court made it clear that the pride of a community is not a justification that is sufficient for a hiring practice that is discriminatory.Walsh,D. J. (2016). Recruitment. InEmployment law for human resource practice(5th ed.,pp. 109-148). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.Heinis,J. (2011, December 15). Court rules North Hudson Regional Fire and Rescueresidency policy discriminates against blacks | NJ.com. Retrieved on 3rdAugust fromhttp://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2011/12/court_rules_north_hudson_regio.html