45°
The exam in question had been administered in September of 2008, with its resulting list of candidates issued in March of 2009. This list would have been valid for three years, until March of 2012. The first promotion from the list was made in November of 2009.
In January 2010, the lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Dept. of Justice, not due to any complaining group, but rather a statistical analysis of test scores conducted by the U.S. DOJ, going back to the year 2000, in which non-minority officers were scoring higher than minorities.
While not stating a reason for why the exams were discriminatory against minorities, the government stated that the test results alone caused a “disparate impact” against them. The government went on to the state the exams had been to reliant on “reading and writing” and were not shown to be job-related.
It should be noted that the exams consisted of questions based on New Jersey criminal laws, motor vehicle laws, New Jersey Attorney General Guidelines, case law, the U.S. Constitution, and nationally recognized police management texts from a prescribed reading list — all relevant, JOB-RELATED material made available to ALL prior to testing.
In September of 2010, Teaneck promoted the next five candidates from its list, numbers 2-6. Two of these promotions were of minorities, specifically Hispanic.
On July 27th, 2011, Teaneck requested the list again be certified in order to make additional promotions of three Sergeants, numbers 7-9. One of these promotions, #7, would be of a minority, specifically black.
On August 1st, 2011, the U.S. DOJ and New Jersey released a “proposed” consent decree, a settlement voluntarily entered into in order to address the lawsuit. Although released for public inspections, the decree states that it must under go a “fairness hearing” and be signed by a federal judge before it can be finalized.
On August 2nd, 2011, [the] New Jersey Civil Service [Commission] certified the next three candidates as “Eligible for Appointment” in Teaneck. The three eligibles [were] subsequently promoted effective August 16 at a public promotional ceremony that [took] place among family, friends and colleagues, and [was] broadcast live on a local cable channel from the Mayor and Council meeting. The three new Sergeants assume[d] their new positions with pride and enthusiasm and spen[t] a considerable amount of money on new uniforms and equipment upgrades for their new positions.
On October 13, 2011, the three new Sergeants [were] notified by the Chief of Police that the New Jersey Civil Service Commission [was] refusing to recognize their promotions and that they may only be considered “provisional,” with no job rights or entitlement. They [were] told that they must take the new exam that will be held in January 2012.
With only three months or less until the new exam, the three sergeants are now in a position of extreme disadvantage, as the study groups (prep courses) all [began] in May. The three sergeants in question all had attended previous study groups prior to taking their 2008 exam at considerable financial cost — $2,500 — and personal sacrifice in the form of time, travel, and study.
WHAT YOU CAN DO: Letters of objection to the consent decree must include your name, address and telephone number. They can be sent to:
State of New Jersey Settlement Team
Employment Litigation Section
U.S. Department of Justice / Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Or call the U.S. Justice Department (202-305-4267) or N.J. Attorney General’s Office (609-292-8866)
That the New Jersey Civil Service Commission is refusing to recognize their hard-earned promotions is due to a portion of the “proposed consent decree” that states 10 jurisdictions within the state must cease to use its current eligibility lists, as further use of these specific lists MAY cause further disparate impact against minorities.
This is based on one man’s opinion, the United States “expert,” specifically Dr. Bernard Siskin PhD, based on some formula he used in his “declarations” — documents that do not appear in the decree.
Teaneck is listed as one of these jurisdictions, along with Jersey City, Camden, Trenton, Pleasantville, Paterson, Passaic, Atlantic City, Irvington and Salem City.
That Teaneck, an affluent Bergen County suburb 4 miles long, where the average median household income is $84,000 (2000 Census), is lumped in with this group of much larger inner-city areas with poor social economic conditions is ABSURD. Furthermore, as a result of another provision of the decree, Teaneck will be required to make three “priority appointments” of minorities, specifically 2 black, 1 Hispanic, from the next list.
Only after those “priority appointments” are made can anyone else be eligible for promotion. In order to qualify as a “priority appointment,” one must be a listed “claimant” in the consent decree. Listed claimants are any minority who has taken a sergeant’s exam since 2000 and ha[s] not been promoted. Therefore, the highest anyone can expect to place on the new list, to include non-claimant minorities or whites, even if they answered every test question correct, is 4th.
This is race-based decision making and promotions being awarded on the basis of race and the color of one’s skin as opposed to their professional qualifications and merits. This practice has no place in a post-9/11 world for a critical first responder agency on the Eastern Seaboard.
That these three sergeants are having their hard-earned and deserved promotions stripped from them after they were rightfully appointed is WRONG. That the state is enforcing the provisions of a “proposed consent decree” that has yet to be signed by a federal judge or stood the test of a fairness hearing is WRONG. That these three Sergeants would be replaced by three minority appointments based on the color of their skin is discriminatory and WRONG.
This situation is completely WRONG and echoes the plight of the New Haven 20 (19 white, 1 Hispanic) firefighters, who successfully litigated their promotional discrimination suit to the U.S. Supreme Court and were victorious.
Common sense would dictate that if some change was needed for testing purposes, then future exams could be altered. But to retroactively go back in time and freeze existing lists is WRONG. To make “priority appointments” of someone based on the color of their skin as opposed to their professional qualifications is WRONG.
We are seeking the support and assistance of anyone who can help right this wrong.
{loadposition log}
Click here to follow Daily Voice South Passaic and receive free news updates.
