Sections

Neighborhoods

Features

Follow Us

NHI Newsletter

Some Favorite Sites

Government/ Community Links

Judge Swings Back; Ricci Case Stalls

by Thomas MacMillan | Feb 4, 2010 1:59 pm

(52) Comments | Commenting has been closed | E-mail the Author

Posted to: Legal Writes

Nicole Allan / Melissa Bailey File Photos (Updated: 2 p.m.) U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton Thursday defended herself against an attack on her impartiality in the “New Haven 20” firefighters case, but failed to sway an attorney who wants a different judge.

The attorney, Karen Lee Torre, declared in Judge Arterton’s Church Street courtroom Thursday that she’ll file a motion in two weeks arguing that the judge should remove herself from presiding over the case because of alleged bias.

As a result, the employment discrimination case—Ricci v. DeStefano, which has returned to New Haven after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling—will be stalled until at least mid-February.

Arterton mounted her defense during a courtroom conference on Thursday morning. Judge Arterton responded to questions Torre had raised during a surprise grilling at a previous conference on Jan. 20 and a subsequent exchange on Jan. 27.

Torre represents the “New Haven 20” in the Ricci case, which pits a group of mostly white firefighters against the city in a hiring discrimination dispute.

Citing extensive case law, Judge Arterton Thursday sought to dispel Torre’s concerns about her former law firm’s actions, as well as those of her husband.

She also spoke to concerns about an alleged improper relationship with New Haven attorney David Rosen. Rosen represents Michael Briscoe, a black firefighter trying to intervene in the Ricci case.

Judge Arterton said that she will not rule on any other motions in the case until she has addressed Torre’s recusal motion. That means Ricci is frozen for a fortnight—and maybe longer, if Torre’s motion is successful; or if Torre decides to appeal a dismissal of her recusal motion.

The Ricci case stems from a 2003 fire department promotions exam. Torre’s clients—dubbed the “New Haven 20”—sued the city in 2004 after it threw out the results of the test when no black firefighters scored highly enough to be among the first round of promotions. The case went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the New Haven 20 (and overruled a prior ruling by Arterton) in June 2009.

Now the case is back in New Haven, where the question of plaintiffs’ damages remain to be addressed. Also at issue is Briscoe’s attempt to intervene in the case. Briscoe is a member of the New Haven Firebirds, an organization of black New Haven firefighters.

Speaking at length from the bench on Thursday, Arterton addressed Torre’s questions one by one. She first spoke about how her former law firm represented the Firebirds 18 years ago. The substance of that case was not related to Ricci, Arterton said. Nor were any of the parties in Ricci involved in the 18-year-old case. It is therefore not related, Arterton said.

Next: the judge’s relationship with attorney Rosen. “While Mr. Rosen’s relationship with Ms. Torre sounds troubled, mine is simple,” Arterton said. She described the professional circumstances in which she has known Rosen. She has appointed him to two pro bono cases and presented him with an award at a dinner in 2008, Arterton said.

The judge answered questions about her husband’s alleged work as a polling consultant for Mayor John DeStefano, the defendant in the case. “My husband [Christopher Arterton] confirmed what I had thought,” Arterton said: He never worked for DeStefano.

Arterton then returned to the subject of the old Firebirds case. Not only was she not involved in that case, and not only are no plaintiffs the same in the Ricci case, Arterton said. But 18 years have passed. She then read from extensive case law demonstrating that judges in similar circumstances have not needed to be recused.

As the judge spoke, Attorney Torre picked up her iPhone and began paging through it.

Arterton concluded that she saw no reason to recuse herself. She asked that it Torre still plans to file a motion to recuse, that she do so “forthwith.” Torre asked for two weeks to work on the motion. Judge Arterton granted the request and promised not to rule on any other motions in the meantime.

Torre declined to comment on her upcoming motion.

Torre v. Arterton

Thursday’s conference was a follow-up to conferences on Jan. 20 and 27, at which Torre subjected the judge to relentless questioning about potential improprieties or conflicts of interest on the part of the federal judge.

Torre quizzed Arterton about her former law firm’s representation of black firefighters, speeches she has given, her husband’s career, and the judge’s relationship with New Haven attorney David Rosen.

Judge Arterton, who has nearly 15 years on the bench, called Torre’s “interrogation” “highly irregular.”

The details of the tense back and forth between Torre and Arterton are spelled out in an 89-page court transcript of the Jan. 20 conference.

The pointed questioning at times took on a Perry Mason air, as the lawyer quizzed judge about her precise whereabouts and activities on certain dates.

Torre began on a combative note.

“The only reason I have not filed that motion is because for some reason, with all due respect, your Honor, you have been resisting my efforts to gain an opportunity to speak with you about the recusal issue. I have been asking for that opportunity since Dec. 4,” she said.

“Can you get to the substance of your request?” Arterton replied. “Thank you.”

Torre said that although in 22 years she has never sought to recuse a judge, “I will tell you that the plaintiffs are filing a motion to recuse your Honor from this case.” The motion will be directed at the standards of 28 U.S.C. Section 455 (a), which covers the appearance of impartiality or bias. Torre threatened that she may file another motion, under part (b) of the statute, which covers the presence of actual bias.

“I have not made that determination, Judge Arterton, whether this motion should be filed. That is largely going to depend on what I hear from the Court today.” Torre warned. “But the motion under the (a) section is going to be filed, that decision has been made.”

Torre acknowledged that it is an “extremely unpleasant thing for me to do, but I have to.”

Arterton asked why Torre doesn’t simply file the motion without discussing it with her first.

Torre responded that “the breadth of the motion is something I cannot fully assess,” without asking the judge for certain “disclosures.”

Thus began Torre’s examination of the federal judge.

First Torre wanted to know how the Ricci case came to Arterton’s court. She charged that there had been “an unprecedented swap of judges in this case.”

“Now you understand it was randomly assigned to me, do you not?” Arterton said. She said she received the case after Judge Mark Kravitz “could no longer remain on the case.”

That seemed to satisfy Torre, who moved on to a line of questioning regarding attorney Rosen. She asked the judge to disclose “whether you have a relationship with David Rosen ... meaning whether he’s been a guest at your home, whether he’s been a guest at your parties.

“Secondly, given what I have now discerned to be a relationship to the point where Mr. Rosen appears to be a go-to person for your Honor on pro bono assignments, despite the rules requiring that judges remove themselves from that process, I’m looking at—”

The judge interrupted to ask what rules Torre was referring to.

“I’m concerned that your relationship with Mr. Rosen would impede your ability to rule adversely to him,” Torre said.

“There is nothing before me on that,” Arterton responded, meaning she hadn’t received a motion from Torre about this matter.

“There is going to be,” Torre responded. She asked Arterton to answer the question of whether she had discussed the Ricci case with Rosen.

As a Supreme Court case, Ricci has received considerable publicity, Arterton said. “It would be hard for me to say that I have not acknowledged the existence of the Ricci case before the Supreme Court. So when you say discuss it, I don’t know what you mean.”

Rosen has not been a guest in her home, nor does she have a social relationship with him, Arterton said. She acknowledged that Rosen is a “go-to person in some sense” since he has a fellowship at his practice for young attorneys who do pro bono work.

Arterton said she would address the matter further if Torre put a motion in writing. “To other matters,” the judge began.

But Torre wasn’t through. “I have other questions,” she said.

“Do you know, the process of interrogation is a bit odd, I will tell you, Ms. Torre,” Arterton said. “I did some research to understand what right it was that you would have to interrogate a judge.”

“I’m not—” Torre started.

“And I do think it is highly irregular,” Arterton said. But, since she wanted to understand Torre’s concerns, Arterton said, she allowed the attorney to continue.

Torre countered that Arterton was turning a discussion into an interrogation by avoiding the questions. She said she asked only for the disclosure of certain facts, “and instead of just making the requested disclosures, with all due respect your Honor, you are engaging me.”

Arterton again suggested the questions would be better dealt with in writing, “because I’m trying to be helpful to you, only to have you turn it around saying, aha! You are transmuting it.”

Torre then brought up a 2006 conference on the Ricci case, at which Torre and the judge discussed the fact that Arterton’s former law firm had represented Frank Ricci when he sued the city in the 1990s. “Now the court didn’t consider me to be interrogating it then,” Torre said.

In addition to representing Ricci, Arterton’s firm, Garrison and Arterton, also served as counsel for the Firebirds at one point, Torre said. The Firebirds are headed by Gary Tinney, one of the several black firefighters who had sought to intervene on the Ricci case.

“Judge, my clients have a serious comfort problem here and you seem to be getting angry with me for not just filing a motion to recuse you,” Torre said.

Arterton asked if the Firebirds had made any filings in the Ricci case under their own name. “This matter I would like to look into,” she said. The judge said she didn’t know the Firebirds were involved.

“Is there anything else?” she asked.

“One thing, but I have the feeling it’s going to get you upset again,” Torre said. She said she had concerns about public speeches the judge has given. She advised the judge to just answer her questions without a lot of “back-and-forth.”

Torre asked the judge about a recent address at UConn on the topic of racism and race discrimination. She asked the judge to identify a colleague who had given her a letter from a juror, which she read from in her speech. The judge declined to state a name, without consulting with the colleague first.

Saying it would be her last question, Torre mentioned two phone calls she had received from callers stating that Arterton’s husband was a polling consultant who had worked for John DeStefano.

The judge said that was untrue.

Then Torre brought up the fact that Arterton had personally attended the Ricci oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Arterton said it was the first time a case of hers had been heard by the Supreme Court.

Torre suggested it was highly unusual for a judge to attend oral arguments that way. “When that happened, I was startled by it and unnerved by it, and so were my clients,” Torre said. Her research indicates that no other judge has done that, she said.

Torre then quizzed the judge on her whereabouts on the day before the Supreme Court oral arguments in April 2009. Hadn’t she in fact been at a conference in Chicago on “how to read and predict the winner of Supreme Court cases?”

Arterton said she had been at a conference the day before, one that covered a variety of topics. It was not related to her attendance of the oral arguments, she said.

Finally, the judge said she would not issue a ruling on any motions before her, including Briscoe’s motion to intervene, “until I make a determination on whether or not it is appropriate for me to remain the judge on this case.”

But Torre still wasn’t done. She returned to the question of a relationship between Rosen and Arterton.

Arterton said she hadn’t discussed Ricci with Rosen.

Torre said that was “not specific enough to put me at ease.”

“Well, Ms. Torre, I bet little would put you at ease,” Arterton said. She concluded the conference with a promise to look into any potential conflicts arising from her firm’s representation of the Firebirds.

The following day, Jan. 21, attorneys for the city submitted to the Ricci docket an excerpt from a 2006 conference between Arterton, Torre, and the city. It records a conversation about potential conflicts of interest on the Ricci case, during which Torre brought up the fact that Arterton’s firm had represented Ricci and the Firebirds. Arterton asked if the Firebirds were defendants in the case.

No, said Torre. “I just thought I was duty-bound to flag the issue for you.”

At a follow-up conference on Jan. 27, Torre conceded that the Firebirds issue is not a basis for bias. But it’s an “appearance issue” that raises the possibility of “divided sympathy,” she said.

Torre elaborated on her questions about a relationship between the judge and attorney Rosen. Torre said her suspicion came from a series of emails she exchanged with Rosen in the summer of 2009, when the Ricci case was before the Supreme Court. Rosen asked her a “very pointed series of questions” about the case, Torre said.

“I became a little suspicious about what he was up to,” she said. Rosen told Torre his interest was “largely academic,” she said. “I’m not anybody’s attorney,” she said he told her.

“I didn’t credit that,” Torre said. She wrote back “a very strongly worded email.” It was a “very hostile exchange,” Torre said.

Rosen also wrote an editorial in the Courant about the Ricci case, Torre said. He displayed an “obsessive interest” and an “obsessive reaction to the Supreme Court decision,” she said.

Rosen’s alleged behavior provides the “factual backdrop” for her questioning of the judge on Jan. 20, Torre said.

Given his interest in the case, it “seems like David Rosen would have sought to speak with you,” Torre said to Judge Arterton.

Arterton replied that she has never spoken about the substance of the Ricci case to anyone.

Torre then raised the question of the conference that Arterton attended before the Supreme Court’s oral arguments. Torre said she had looked it up, and the judge had attended the seminar Torre had described.

She and the judge went back and forth over which of two conference Arterton had attended. Was it on the 19th through the 20th of April? Or just on the 21st?

“You are trying to characterize this as a three-day affair, when they were completely different,” Torre charged.

Judge Arterton finally said she would address the various issues Torre raised at a Feb. 4 conference, including the matter of the Firebirds.

Reached by phone, Torre declined to comment on her efforts to have Judge Arterton recuse herself.

City Corporation Counsel Victor Bolden also declined to speak on the matter.

Attorney Rosen said only, “It’s nothing worth commenting on.”


Past stories on fire department promotions and the Ricci case:

• “Tinney Intervenors” Step Down In Ricci Case
• Ricci Victors Seek Damages
• After 6-Year Battle, Firefighters Get Badges
•  Ricci Case’s “Tinney Intervenors” Try Again
•  10 More Firefighters Promoted
•  Judge Blocks Black Firefighters’ Move
•  Board Promotes 14 Firefighters
•  Judge Orders Firefighter Promotions
•  Black Firefighters Seek To Halt Promotions
•  Promotions Pitched In Ricci Case
• Ricci’s Back In Court
• After Ricci Ruling, Black Firefighter Sues City
• Ricci Takes The Stand
• In D.C., Two Latino Views On Sotomayor
• Dems Swing Back On Ricci
• ConnectiCOSH Kibosh
• Sotomayor: I Didn’t “Hide” Ricci Case
• Is Ricci Being Smeared?
• Sotomayor Speaks On Ricci
• Ricci Takes Center Stage
• Watley: I’d Have Promoted Ricci
• Firebirds, NAACP: Ricci Won’t Stop Us
• “If You Work Hard You Can Succeed In America”
• Was He The Culprit?
• Supreme Court Overturns City On Ricci
• On Page 25, A Hint
• Minority Firefighters Vow Post-Ricci Unity
• Ricci Ruling Won’t End Quest
• Ricci, Sotomayor Brand DeStefano
• Firefighter Case Reveals Surprise Obama Stand
• Justices Zero In On Race-Based Distinctions
• Rights Groups Back Black Firefighters
• The Supreme Stakes: Title VII’s Future
• Dobbs v. Bolden
• Latino Group Backs White Firefighters
• Black Firefighters: Ricci Case Poses Grave Threat
• NAACP Backs City In Firefighter Case
• Paging Justice Kennedy
• Fire Inspectors Promoted
• Fire Inspector List Approved
• U.S. Supreme Court To Hear Firefighters’ Case
• Fire Promotions Examined in Supreme Court

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Share this story with others.

Share |

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: Leslie on February 4, 2010  10:03am

“...a group of mostly white firefighters known as the New Haven 20.”

I would like to remind this paper, and its readers, that Hispanic is an ethnicity not a race. All of the firefighters are white.

Ms. Torre’s questioning of Judge Arterton, while unusual, was certainly justified considering the gravity of this case. No lawyer wants to put him or herself in an adversarial position with a judge, but there you are. I am sure Ms. Torre thought long and hard before coming to the decision to address these concerns at a status conference, now we await the judge’s examination of herself.

posted by: shrek on February 4, 2010  10:42am

...Atty Torre will make certain it all comes to light…as for Atty Rosen, how ironic that he is now representing Firefighter Briscoe, when he stated before he was no-ones lawyer….As for Mr. Briscoe, it would be a sad thing if he ever made officer…..

posted by: question on February 4, 2010  11:28am

How does the author knows the substance of the discussions that occurred on Jan. 20 in the Judge’s U.S. District Court chambers?

[Editor’s Note: He read the transcript, which is publicly available.]

posted by: I know who to hire on February 4, 2010  11:41am

Torre is good. You got to give her that. I know who I am calling if the need arises!

posted by: Alphonse Credenza on February 4, 2010  12:47pm

“I would like to remind this paper, and its readers, that Hispanic is an ethnicity not a race.”

I am so pleased to see this stated by someone other than myself.  Hooray!

posted by: question on February 4, 2010  1:17pm

Thank you for the the answer to my question, and the very informative article.
Well written!  I hope this issue is followed in the same professional editorial manner.

posted by: slant not good on February 4, 2010  4:38pm

This piece is very slanted. The court clerks office has the transcripts to read on line. Interesting reading. Unlike McMillan’s cast of the story, it did come out (from the judge) that yes, she did talk with Rosen about Ricci but then says she didn’t talk about the substance of Ricci.  Well how the hell do you talk about a case and not about the case? Yes and No answers don’t help clear things up. And the reporter omits that the judge, in a second follow-up conference with Torre, after learning from Torre about Rosen’s emails to her, then amends her previous answer to Torre regarding her talks with Rosen to add for Torre that she was with Rosen at some judicial conference only months earlier where she had an “opportunity” to discuss with Rosen his litigation work challenging civil service exams (Rosen was counsel to the New Haven Firebirds - so was Arterton’s firm). Right, like that has nothing to do with the Ricci case, which is all about Rosen trying now to challenge the exams.  The transcripts show the judge would not give Torre any details about her discussions with Rosen despite Torre pressing her for specifics regarding what the two talked about. She only spoke of her talks with Rosen in vague terms. Then you see Torre noting that Rosen had around this same time tried to get info out of her about the firefigthter tests while telling Torre that his interest was only curiosity, and he was not anyone’s attorney. Torre got suspicious and wouldn’t turn over any evidence to Rosen. After this, and after chatting with the judge on the Ricci case about his work challenging exams, he appears as an attorney for a Firebird and intervenes in the Ricci case to challenge the exams?  Huh? Talk about appearances - can you blame Torre for wanting some information here?

posted by: Paul on February 4, 2010  5:32pm

@slant not good:

Where exactly did you find the transcripts online? I don’t see them anywhere on the court website, but maybe I’m missing something.

posted by: micky on February 4, 2010  7:14pm

After all her clients went though getting Arterton reversed, Torre is understandably pissed that [a lawyer] friendly with the presiding judge has arrived on the scene just as the case was about to resolve with everyone getting on with their lives.  David Rosen doesn’t look very good trying to coax information out of Torre by telling her he’s not anyone’s counsel, only to intervene in Torre’s case on behalf of a client.  You gotta wonder whether Rosen would have had the nerve to monkeywrench the case at the last minute if Arterton was not the judge.

posted by: masonic elmhavener on February 4, 2010  7:15pm

Gee, Rosen talks to the judge on the Ricci case about the Ricci case, but they really didn’t talk about the “substance” of the Ricci case. Alrighty. Then the judge and Rosen are together at a judges’ conference (what’s Rosen doing at a judges’ conference?) and the two chat about Rosen’s expertise representing African-Americans challenging civil service exams. At the same time, Rosen’s emailing Torre trying to get evidence out of her by telling her not to worry -  he is not anyone’s lawyer or anything like that.  Then a New Haven Firebird falls out of a tree and lands in Rosen’s office.  Rosen then sues to challenge the 2003 tests and intervenes in the Ricci case before Judge Arterton who got reversed by the Supreme Court but will now entertain Rosen’s claims that the Supreme Court that reversed her was wrong.  Nice.  Naw, this don’t smell none… it’s just a concidence.  After all, Rosen has the expertise no?

posted by: crisis mode on February 4, 2010  7:24pm

Really seems to me her honor is in crisis mode. She was admonished by the Supremes along with her ideological twin and now rather then simply hand off the case that she screwed up to begin with she is headed down the same path on remand. Is the woman a glutton for punishment?

Whats more, we are in an economic crisis here, and rather than hand off the case to a clearly unbiased judge, JBA would again show her elitist attitude and waste more of the taxpayers money on more motions, man-hours, etc.

Really quite concerning and is the epitome of Thomas Jefferson’s concerns regarding lifetime appointment to the judiciary.

posted by: River to State on February 4, 2010  8:13pm

Slant not good, are you surprised by this bias coverage? Unfortunatly the NHI’s left wing agenda shines through again. It truly is sickening.

posted by: JR on February 4, 2010  10:42pm

I haven’t read the full transcript, but based on the portions quoted here, this is completely bizarre and unprofessional conduct by Attorney Torre.

Clearly Torre has already decided that because she lost before this judge once, she’s going to lose before her again (on whatever issues remain to be decided), and so she wants a different judge.  The recusal motion will be denied; Torre will appeal; the appeal will obviously be denied, and Torre will be stuck actually litigating whatever issue she’s litigating at this point in front of a federal judge whom she has interrogated in an unbelievably unprofessional—and frankly, a little delusional and paranoid—manner.

... Judges try to be impartial, but it’s hard to take seriously an attorney who in the past has behaved in a disrespectful, belligerent, manner as she files a blatantly frivolous recusal motion.

My question is: why on earth would Torre do this?  It obviously won’t get her clients anything, and only hurts their case.  ...

posted by: Cap on February 5, 2010  9:58am

“JR” sounds like a shill for Rosen and the City. Torre didn’t win this case by being subserviant to Arterton.  She won it by resisting and standing up to her. She’s not a suck up artist. ...

posted by: Walt on February 5, 2010  10:06am

JR

Despite your claimed rudeness by Torre, she has successfully litigated a case for the “20”  all the way to the Supreme Court, and won a “landmark”  case.

Few lawyers have such a record. 

Odds are high that if you are a lawyer,  which   you seem to imply, but do not quite claim,  your record comes no way near   matching hers.

As a non-expert, I predict that in the end, on the new pleas,  Torre, if she stays on the case will win a major settlement, maybe, but necessarily further embarrassing Judge Artiton .

While making non-expert predictions I’ll also bet that Briscoe and his lawyer   withdraw or are tossed out of court soon.  For Briscoe’s sake, I hope he has a pro-bono attorney,  or he   will be up the proverbial creek.

posted by: Walt on February 5, 2010  11:00am

Correction above.

“NOT necessarily further embarrassing Judge ARTERTON”  etc.

posted by: six degrees of separation???? on February 5, 2010  1:52pm

So is it proper to question every Judge on every case they preside over?  Is there or is there not six degrees of separation? I am willing to bet that we all can connect our selves to people who we have never met if we sat around long enough asking where were you on this day or that day and who you were with and came over your house that new this or that guy. Really let’s question every judge every time they preside over any case. I am sure some one will know some body. Just a thought.

posted by: Anon on February 5, 2010  5:20pm

I’m no fan of Torre’s and I also am no fan of Rosen’s.

Torre can be unnecessarily mean and nasty. But does she have a right to seek disclosures whether it is commonly done or not?

Yes she does. Arterton uses the word “irregular,” instead of uncommon, which I don’t like because that word suggests impropriety.

(Her using it gives a glimpse of the royal deference these judges expect and frankly get all day and all night in Connecticut. I’d love to see them get out of a day in the Southern or Eastern NY districts with their pants left on.)

Remember, Torre went in to get disclosures so as to make a better informed decision whether to file for recusal. She had to drag them out of Arterton.

And remember, the case was reassigned to Arterton late in the game.

About that reassignment, Macmillan’s quote - is that ALL Arterton said about it? Because if so, it is not certain statement, yes or no. According to MacMillan, she asks if it is Torre’s “understanding” that it was reassigned to her randomly. IF I were Torre, I might be tempted to come back at that question.

I’ve always liked Torre’s determination. She will dig to China if she thinks she can get away with it. I just wish she would be half as arrogant and a little more civilized about it. She sometimes devolves into just numb bullying, but this isn’t an example of that.

Rosen, I just think Rosen is a light weight and irrelevant. the hardest, most pressing civil rights cases are ones that never seem to interest him in the least.

posted by: azekah jennings on February 5, 2010  5:42pm

check this out

posted by: zeb on February 5, 2010  9:13pm

This Supreme Crt win is really getting to this woman’s head. In her latest immature rant about the left and the President’s state of the union address in the Law Tribune, she castigates Obama (yes- THE Obama who dared mentioned MY supreme court case on TV!!!!) for his “appalling breach of decorum”. I guess her behavior here constitutes zealous advocacy.

posted by: abg on February 5, 2010  10:04pm

Torre has already won. She doesn’t need or want to get rid of Judge Arterton. This is about working the refs, pure and simple. Torre herself admits that Arterton’s firm representing the Firebirds once a couple decades ago is irrelevant but she invents some garbage about an “appearance issue” of “divided sympathy.” C’mon, please. It’s obvious what’s going on here. If Arterton stays on the case she’ll be boxed in - the extra scrutiny will put pressure on her to favor the plaintiffs.  Torre is playing chess here while Vic Bolden, Judge Arterton, etc. are playing checkers. Arterton needs to forget about defending her honor and get off the case.

posted by: JR on February 5, 2010  11:18pm

Of course attorneys are entitled to take an aggressive stance—that’s a perfectly respectable thing to do.

What’s not normal is interrogating a judge this way.  I’m not sure if everyone can see this from reading the article, but to any lawyer who has been in federal court, it’s obvious that this kind of Q & A with the lawyer asking the questions and the judge giving the answers is very rare, maybe unprecedented. 

Judge Arterton chose to let Torre press all her points—even ones based on factual inaccuracies and odd rumors—so that Torre will not be able to say she didn’t get a fair hearing on the recusal motion.

But in the end, this is a frivolous motion, in my personal opinion.  In particular the whole set of claims about the Firebirds is just outrageous: it’s as though if Judge Arterton’s former firm had ever represented black firefighters in any matter (even one unrelated to the case at hand), that would somehow render her unable to give white firefighters a fair shake?  Yikes.

posted by: JR is Spinning on February 6, 2010  10:24am

JR spins. He says the judge allowed Torre to “press her points.” Torre wasn’t pressing “points.” She just asked for disclosure of any facts known to the judge that might bear on the recusal issue. Her hunch that Rosen and Arterton had talked about the Ricci case turned out to be true, so that was not “delusional” but based on Torre’s knowledge of Rosen’s own pattern of behavior, as reported to the judge. JR suggests Torre’s recusal efforts will only antagonize Arterton and “hurt” her case. How could he make that assessment unless he/she is a lawyer who claims to know how things work in the court system. So, what is JR suggesting about Arterton? An interesting presumption JR makes about this judge. Or at least it shows “JR” has a cynical view of Arterton as someone who will retaliate or hurt those who challenge her. He hardly compliments Arterton by doing that.  As for JR’s cocky predictions about what happens from here, or what Torre’s chances on appeal are with the recusal issue, JR is a know-it-all is he? Remember folks, when Arterton first threw out the firefighters’ case, everyone said they were done. They were wrong.  Then when Torre lost at the appellate court which ditched the case with an insulting few sentences and no published opinion, everyone thought Torre was crazy and wasting her time petitioning the Supreme Court, that she had zero chance.  They were wrong. Later still, many pundits predicted Torre might win in Washington but were sure that Arterton would be give another opportunity on remand to consider the “new standard,” and that she could side with New Haven all over again, making Torre’s Supreme Court victory an academic one. They were wrong, again. So JR’s predictions are worth the proverbial grain of salt and his unflattering insinuations about Arterton say more about JR than they do about her.
So, I suggest you opinionators stop telling Torre whether her decisions are wise or not. She never listened to any naysayers before and she won’t give a s—t about what they say now.

posted by: Zeb is Worse than JR on February 6, 2010  12:26pm

“Zeb” must be way too ccupied with Torre. He’s now reading and purporting to quote from what he describes as Torre’s “rant” in the CT Law Tribune (Torre is a columnist for that lawyers’ newspaper). First off, why is it that liberals describe conservative opinions as “rants” but when liberals opine (often frothing at the mouth when they do so, hurling insults as Zeb does here) they of course are not “ranting.” What a hypocrite.  Well, thanks for the lead Zeb - reading the column shows that you have a credibility problem. Here’s the link (it’s free access) to the Torre column of which “Zeb” speaks:  http://www.ctlawtribune.com/getarticle.aspx?ID=36225.  Torre did not say what Zeb quotes her as saying (“how dare Obama speak of MY case ....) What Torre actually said was that she was “amused that any case of hers had attracted the attention of the President of the United States.” Take an honesty class, Zeb.  You need one. And if you are a lawyer (which you reading of a lawyer’s newspaper suggests), then you need to take that class right away.

posted by: bobby j new haven on February 6, 2010  2:55pm

first of all, a judge that gets overturned on appeal from the supreme court should not be sitting on any type of remand on that case. obviously arterton is going to be pissed off that she got overturned on appeal.second of all, the statue says that if the average person off the street looked at a case and had even the slightest doubt that there was any type of impropriety,than the judge should recuse herself so, one must ask him or herself why the judge is so adamant about staying on this case? I know why and stay tuned, because you will find out why too.

posted by: Walt on February 7, 2010  12:04pm

Bobby

Quick look at pertinent statuTes does not find words backing up your claim re
” slightest doubt by average person requires   recusal etc”.

Did I miss   it?  If so could you cite the StatuTe number?

Thanks

posted by: Paul on February 7, 2010  5:26pm

Back in the real world, trial judges routinely get their decisions reversed on appeal and continue to preside over those same cases by impartially and dispassionately applying the law. To say that Arterton (or any other judge, for that matter) would “obviously . . . be pissed off” at the developments in this case is to demonstrate profound ignorance about the way that the legal system works.

Judges have a professional obligation to hear the cases assigned to them. Recusal demands are not to be taken lightly, because if they were, litigants could just manufacture grounds for disqualification through accusation and innuendo and thereby obtain reassignment to judges more to their liking. That’s why this was “irregular”: if Torre had a legitimate basis for recusal, presumably she wouldn’t need to go on a fishing expedition in open court.

posted by: tanner on February 7, 2010  6:59pm

Uhm.. The Supreme Court made a ruling why is Ricci still in court? When the Court ruled for Brown was the Board of Education allowed to say we don’t agree with their decision so we’ll find a local judge to come up with something else?

posted by: moreorless on February 7, 2010  9:04pm

It has all become a game between the City and Arterton. To even entertain Briscoe’s case—still—instead of throwing it out because it has no legal basis, is Arterton’s game—why? because her buddy is Briscoe’s Atty(Rosen).  There is your impropriety—briscoe wants to go back in time, alter the weights of the testing scores to 70% Oral, 30% written and place himself in the #2 position on the Lt.‘s list, then claim—I deserve a promotion. For Arterton to even entertain this is ridiculous, and I am sure, against what the SCOTUS aimed for in their decision.

posted by: re:Paul on February 7, 2010  11:52pm

Paul - It depends on the case. The legal standard is not whether the judge is biased or impartial but whether there are circumstances surrounding the case that would lead people to question it or have concerns about it. That’s all you need to show.  Lots of judges have been ordered recused based on that even when they are in fact impartial and fair, as many appellate courts have held in reversing a judge’s refusal to recuse. 

Public trust in the courts means there should be no controversy or questions over the impartiality of a judge. 

Judges have been recused even in cases where both parties think the judge would be fair. It’s a matter of appearances.  And Lord knows, the Ricci case has suffered from bad appearances throughout with many agreeing they were not treated fairly by the lower courts.

Heck the Supreme Court didn’t think they were treated fairly by the lower courts. Alito was particularly critical of Arterton who summarily threw the case out even though she herself acknowledged that a jury could conclude based on the evidence that city officials tried to sabotage their promotions. If the plaintiffs were black, and all other facts were the same, do you think the lower court’s rulings would have been the same - cause few people do.

posted by: JR on February 8, 2010  3:12am

The reason they are back in court is because various issues have not yet been litigated.  The main one is damages.  It is pretty routine, when appellate or Supreme Court cases come down, to remand the case to the original trial court to resolve remaining issues like this.  And yes, it pretty much always goes back to the original judge.  Would it really be efficient to have a new judge start over learning everything about the case from scratch?  I don’t think so.  Don’t worry, trial judges know how to follow what the Supreme Court or appellate courts tell them to do.  Judge Arterton has already demonstrated that herself.

It’s easy to forget, but this is a money damages case.  The “New Haven 20” stand to win a pretty substantial amount of cash from the City (and a slice of that, I would assume, is how Torre will be paid).  Among other things, Torre is claiming emotional distress damages on behalf of her clients.

Beyond that, there’s the issue of the intervenors, who argue that New Haven cannot make promotions on the basis of this test because the test has a disparate impact (i.e. exactly the claim that New Haven was trying to avoid when it threw out the test to begin with).  Although this is probably confusing if you’re not a lawyer, the intervenors’ claim has not actually been litigated or resolved by the Supreme Court case—no plaintiffs challenging the test have been involved in Ricci so far. 

There may be other issues as well, but those are the two obvious ones I know of (money, and intervenors).

posted by: JR Spins Again on February 8, 2010  10:44am

JR spins again. The Supreme Court DID decide what the city’s duty was regarding the ‘03 test. And it said the City was obligated to promote in accordance with the test results and that it violated the law by not abiding by those results. 

And, the Supremes went on to add that if, after the city certified the promotion lists and promoted (i.e., abided by the results), some latecomer shows up and tries to unravel that with a suit againt the city trying to hold it liable for doing exactly that which the Supreme Court ordered it to do, it “should be clear” that that suit would have no merit.

Leave it to a firefighter who flunked a test to NOT be able to read and get that.  And for any lawyer to hold up the city and and the firefighters and the whole fire department with a bogus lawsuit making the BS argument JR is peddling is a shame.

posted by: Paul on February 8, 2010  11:46am

Of course recusal is a fact-specific issue, and of course some judges recuse themselves after appeal or are ordered to do so by an appellate court. But that’s the exception, not the rule.

Let’s also be careful about describing the history of this case. Reasonable people are entitled to disagree over whether the firefighters or the city should have prevailed. But I’m aware of no actual evidence that the plaintiffs were treated *unfairly* by Judge Arterton. Saying that she “threw out” the case may be fine phrase for a newspaper and for Justice Alito, but that language obscures the reality that Arterton heard the merits of the motions and then delivered a long opinion granting summary judgment for the city. The Supreme Court concluded that her ruling was legally incorrect, but the fact that she disagreed with the firefighters’ position doesn’t mean her handling of the case was *unfair* to them.

And there’s no “spin” in JR’s comments. He or she is exactly right that there’s a lot that’s still left to resolve in this case. Justice Kennedy’s closing comment about foreclosing future derivative claims doesn’t mean that on remand there’s nothing left to do. For a judge to swiftly and cavalierly dispose of the remaining issues like you suggest here would be, well, unfair.

posted by: re: Paul on February 8, 2010  2:36pm

Like hell it wasn’t unfair. The Supreme Court said the judge failed to adhere to fundamental Title VII principles, that these men were denied even-handed enforcement of the country’s civil rights laws and that the judge summarily threw out the case despite acknowledging that a jury might find the city’s stated excuse was a pretext.

And Judge Jose Cabranes at the appeals level noted this remarkable “path-breaking” legal pronouncement of Arterton’s was one she notably did not publish. And then, as Cabranes further noted, the Sotomyor-Pooler panel on appeal disposed of this case of “exceptional importance” with a one-paragraph unpublished summary order which arguably hampered the firefighters’ chances of gaining meaningful judicial review, fueling web commentary that these judges tried to bury the case for political reasons. 

Whether that was true or not doesn’t matter. Irregular conduct like that arouses public suspicion and cynicism that hurts the courts’ image and standing with the public. Two unpublished decisions on what everyone later understood to be one of the biggest civil rights race cases in the U.S.?  Yeah, Paul, you gotta another bridge to sell?

posted by: Paul on February 8, 2010  4:25pm

I appreciate the reply, but you’re still conflating fairness with legal correctness. These concepts are distinct. You disagree with the ultimate outcome of the district court’s ruling, but can you point to anything in Judge Arterton’s handling of the case that was unfair to either side? It’s not enough to cite a portion of the legal analysis you and the Supreme Court found unpersuasive. That’s the issue of whether the ruling was correct under the law. Rather, it’s stuff like this: Did Arterton fail to give the firefighters a full chance to present their arguments? Did she prejudge the case? Drag the case along without issuing a decision? Distort the facts? Do anything procedurally improper?

(It’s a small point, but Judge Cabranes’ comment about Arterton’s opinion being unpublished was not a criticism directed to her. Unlike with the Courts of Appeals, my understanding is that publication decisions for district court opinions in the F.Supp.2d are typically made by West, not district judges.)

Your original claim was that many people “agree” that the firefighters “were not treated fairly.” I’m challenging you on this point because I’ve seen it repeated elsewhere, yet it’s completely without basis. And it’s important because it ties into the same basic issue originally raised by this article.

Accusing a judge of mishandling a case is a serious charge. Not all judges agree on how to apply the law to each set of facts, and of course some judges make mistakes, too. But regardless of the merits of the legal issues, judges serve the public and have a responsibility to treat the litigants and attorneys appearing before them in an evenhanded manner. The basic function of judging is to be able to do that while also determining who wins and who loses under the law.

So when you attack the fairness of the proceedings, you call into question the impartiality and neutrality of the judge just like Torre is doing. Just like she has to have a valid ground for demanding Arterton’s recusal, you, too, have to back up your claim of unfairness by pointing to something other than an analytical error in her written opinion.

The problem with your claim is your statement that “whether [commentary that these judges tried to bury the case for political reasons] was true or not doesn’t matter.” But of course that matters, and this applies equally well to Torre’s innuendo-based recusal demand. Wild, unfounded speculation is the stuff of angry mobs, not reasonable debate. Cabranes may have convinced 5 members of the Supreme Court to take the case and reverse, but he couldn’t get a majority of his own court to agree with him. Are the 7 members of the Second Circuit that agreed with the outcome below also guilty of acting politically and unfairly? Where do we draw the line? Keep in mind also that, of the 23 judges that weighed in on the case, 12 agreed that the city should prevail.

Talking about the Second Circuit gets us off track, though, because the point, again, is that there’s no evidence of unfairness at the district court. If you had any, I know I’d like to see it.

posted by: appellate lawyer on February 8, 2010  6:06pm

Tanner - The Supreme Court routinely remands cases for further proceedings.  Yes, that included Brown v. Board of Ed.

Anon - It is a compliment to both Torre and Rosen that you are not a fan of either, since you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to law.  No horse in this race, but Rosen has been successful in high profile cases for 40 years.  I mean, the guy represented the Black Panthers, the Bridgeport Firemen, and on and on.  He’s the guy other lawyers go to, including big time firms from out-of-state.  Torre gets a lot of credit for this case, but she did not argue before the Supreme Court.

posted by: re:Paul on February 8, 2010  7:55pm

You still keep getting the standard wrong - and you echo the NHI reporter’s erroneous and misleading characterization of the firefighters’ lawyer as “charging” or “accusing” a judge of bias or impartiality.  No such thing has occurred - questions and requests for disclosure by the court of out-of-court communications with a lawyer who has now made himself a figure in the case is what has happened thus far.
As the lawyer and the law state, the question is not whether there has been any misconduct by anyone but whether cirumstances have evolved that give rise to appearances which might make people have doubts or question impartiality. You seem to be acting like a defense lawyer for the judge defending against “accusations” that have not even been made. 

Perhaps if the reporter had written a less inflammatory account and not used sensational terms such as the judge was “charged” with this or that, and headlines like “Judge Swings Back”, making it look like the two women were locked in a barroom brawl and pulling each other’s hair out, NHI readers would not be so misinformed.

posted by: Thanks to Appellate Lawyer on February 8, 2010  9:19pm

To “Appellate Lawyer”:  Thanks for alerting us that David Rosen represented a Black Panther back in the ‘70s. Well, that changes everything and of course shows that Rosen’s intervention in the Ricci case has legal merit.  But of course!  If we had only known this before ...

posted by: newly minted lawyer on February 8, 2010  10:14pm

I hope Judge Arterton does not bow to this ridiculous recusal motion. There is no good reason for her to recuse herself, even though I’m sure she would love to have nothing more to do with this case at this point!

I don’t think it is even close to legitimate to attack a judge’s impartiality on the ground that many years ago her law firm represented some black firefighters, in litigation unrelated to the current set of claims by white firefighters. What, does everybody have to pick a racial “side” and stick with it for their entire legal career? That is ugly, ugly stuff Torre is arguing.

But whatever, I bet this motion will go nowhere. And if Arterton doesn’t want to recuse herself there is zero chance that an appellate court, on these facts, would ask her to. Fuggedaboutit.

posted by: angelo on February 8, 2010  10:15pm

The article and transcript and most of the comments are interesting gossip, with little real meaning.  Torre is an aggressive lawyer and she pursued this issue particularly aggressively.  The Supreme Court decided Ricci by a 5-4 margin, and it will be 10 years or more before we know how it will be enlarged or contracted over time. How many posters have actually read the decision.  It is a great victory for Torre and her clients, but you can also read the Alito opinion as being more about Boise Kimber’s behavior than the law.  In other words, if a future court wants to narrow Ricci, it will read it as a case on the facts as much as on the law.  Will that happen?  It depends more on the next few appointments to the court than on any other factor.  Much of the New Deal was held unconstitutional.  When Roosevelt had two additional appointments, minor changes in the statute were viewed as major changes, and the New Deal was upheld.

posted by: Anon on February 9, 2010  2:48am

To “appellate lawyer”

Saying I know nothing about the law, you proceed to say nothing about the law.

You describe Rosen’s halo. Whoopee.

I’d like to learn the names of the big time law firms that come to Rosen for advice. Can you name some? Geniunely curious.

Torre can be too bullying and Rosen’s choice of cases too irrelevent. You don’t need a law degree to see that. And with a law degree, you haven’t said much of substance about either of them.

The black panther trials were 40 years ago.

posted by: To Newly Minted Lawyer on February 9, 2010  10:31am

... No recusal motion has even been filed yet - if you read the transcripts you will see that Arterton was on her own considering the Firebirds issue and whether, in light of post-remand interventions and lawsuits by the President and members of the Firebirds, it would be prudent for her to voluntarily transfer the case.  You are assuming that Torre moved to recuse her on that basis.  You are wrong - no motion to recuse has been filed yet and you don’t even know the grounds for recusal that will be set forth in a motion that will be filed sometime in the future (it is not, as the back-and-forth with the judge shows, based at all solely on any “firebirds” issue but on other grounds.) ...

posted by: To Anon on February 9, 2010  11:54am

In answer to one of your questions, a notable example was Rosen joining on as counsel in a case brought by big firm lawyers on behalf of Yale Law Professors who wanted to bar the military from recruiting law students for military careers. (Because of the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy on gays).  The Yalies fought against the threat of losing federal tax funds for excluding the military.  Rosen lost - the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared the lawsuit devoid of any legal merit and it was appropriately thrown out of court.  Maybe he did better for the Black Panther.

posted by: Anon on February 9, 2010  5:37pm

I am going to stop making sarcastic, meaningless comments on this story. Let’s try to talk about this case and how we choose firefighters going forward.

Do we feel strongly that firefighters be good at reading and writing and written tests?

Are there abilities that a written test assesses that no amount of oral examination or the use of assessment centers will assess?

Black firefighters opposed to the test want to use assessment centers, which many cities use to promote firefighters instead.

Honestly, as New Haveners living real lives here in the Elmless city, this is the question we need to ask now.

These guys who passed the test needed to be promoted, as they were, and they should get back wages - they are substantial and they’ve gone years without them.

I think the argument that the testing format was racist, had a disparate racial impact because of race is nuts. Plenty of people who did not study hard and did not score well will tell you that the complainers who say the test itself required you to have ancesters who are Irish and Italian firefighters in order to do well are just unable to admit that they didn’t study hard.

There is no getting around the credibility and decency of the people who reviewed this written test over and over and concluded that the test reflected what was in the study materials and was designed to avoid racial bias. They know that anyone competent who studied would have passed the written test.

It seems more likely that those claiming you needed to be the child of and even grandchild of a firefighter to do well are really used to a handout culture with low expectations. I am not into pandering to that.

This was not a test with secret clues only Italian and Irish firefighters from firefighting families could get.

So the heck with the disparate impact arguments. That was never ever ever the case with this test, it was only ever the legal argument applied by critics of the results. 

The real question, for us in the real world who live down the street from our firehouses and depend on them, is whether written testing tests best. Whether Assessment Centers test better or just as well and whether we should switch to them.

A lot of the black firefighters who didn’t study hard enough for and apparently didn’t think they needed to study hard for the written test are in my opinion, incredibly good firefighters. I want them in leadership positions too.

They say Briscoe is really good. He scored highest on the oral portion where they give you scenarios and ask what you would do.

That’s all I have to say. I think when you get down to it, it’s the rock bottom factual reality here on the ground in New Haven.

Judge Sotomayor’s father never finished high school. You don’t need a parent/lawyer to pass the bar exam any more than you need a parent/firefighter to have passed the New Haven written fire test.

The disparate impact issue is a legal definition that is fitted to different conditions. I think if we want to be really honest, we should set it aside and decide whether we want to use assessment centers.

Let Torre and Rosen fight it out in court and Arterton make her decisions - we have to make decisions too and they almost have nothing to do with them.

posted by: appellate lawyer on February 9, 2010  5:56pm

Anon -

you are correct.  I should know better than to joust with someone as well-versed in the law as you.  Your witty sarcasms, your deep understandings of civil rights relevancy and irrelevancy, your insightful deconstruction of Arterton’s language.  I concede.  I’ll sit back and read your witticisms.  Well, actually, I’ll have a few beers, which is more productive.

posted by: To anon on February 9, 2010  7:10pm

Anon - are you a New Haven Firefighter??  On what basis do you claim that the firefighters who failed the test are “good” and would make good commanding officers?  You want someone who failed a job knowledge test to lead other men in dangerous missions?  ARE YOU KIDDING?? Do you know their education records, what certificates they have (or rather lack)?  Are they paramedics and fire instructors with loads of credentials like the top scorers?  Or do they have zip beyond a high school diploma?

If you don’t know the anwer to a question on a job knowledge test, even if the correct choice is staring you in the face, you are not going to know the right answer if asked orally in an “assessment center.” You are wrong to say most cities use assessment centers. 

They do not.  Written tests are best and they are still used.  They are also the least corrupt and capable of being corrupted by racists. PLUS, when assessment centers were used in other cities, guess what?  Blacks complained that THOSE were unfair. Testing experts have said assesment centers have disparate impact too.  When New Haven used strictly oral tests for the police department, blacks sued saying THAT was unfair. 

Get real - no matter what the test, they complain and sue. As for Briscoe, where are you hearing that he is a good firefighter?  Have you interviewed those who have worked with him??? And who wants a guy promoted with his low score on a job knowledge exam - what the heck is this country coming to when we even entertain such garbage.
...
The failing candidates are just being used by these lawyers with their own agenda.  They’ve obviously given little thought to whether they are unwisely subjecting their clients to being being embarassed publicly in a courtroom.

posted by: Anon on February 9, 2010  11:18pm

Well, appellate lawyer, if Paul Bass, the nano-social engineer, hadn’t edited my posts you might have read that I regreted my stupid sarcastic comments. He did however, post the last of my comments where I tried to move on to something productive which I do feel more confident talking about.

I thought we should try to talk about where we go from here. Not a bad idea, no?

As for you, all I know is that in my profession few have persisted in adversity as I have, which consists of doing my job no matter what. I really doubt that you in your “appellate” life have, but only because I know few ever persist in doing the right thing if the powers that be disapprove, or can even figure out what the right thing is.

So, have your beer big guy. I’d be an absolute drunk if a blog comment might inspire one.

posted by: Anon on February 10, 2010  8:53pm

to “To Anon”

I didn’t say most cities use assessment centers.

I think it was David Rosen who personally vouched for Briscoe, saying he would want him in the firehouse down the street from him.

Heck if I know if Rosen meant it or was doing legal posturing.  don’t know Briscoe. I do know Gary Tinney though and although I don’t know his specific fire skills I do know he has great leadership qualities and also has a great way with people. He is really human and caring and that is really important on the scene of medical or other calls. I don’t know if he took the test or not. I mention him because obviously, he has advocated the use of assessment centers. He represents the Firebird’s position on that.

I would be relieved if I needed help and Tinney were there to help me. Absolutely.

But I am not an expert in fire skills per se, so I am not going to write with expertise about his fire skills obviously.

We rely on testing to do that.

Please don’t assume I am taking sides on the assessment center question. I am raising the question because that is the next question that will be addressed in New Haven on this issue, we all know that and might as well get started.

And I share your understanding of the limits of leadership the lawyers are providing. That’s not their job. They have legal goals and also are constrained to aim for those goals in legal langauage in a court.

We as a community need to start looking at the question of testing. If we conclude in the end written tests still are superior then we should keep them.

I started my post by asking if there were skills that a written test tested best. The fact that written tests are not easily manipulated (corruption for example) could be part of the reason someone might answer yes, they are best. Some might feel that they are important for other reasons.

Understand, I am not against written tests or for them. I am trying to learn about the issue.

I am willing to bet Briscoe is a really good firefighter who didn’t take the written test seriously enough, because you can’t score that high on the oral portion without knowing about firefighting, can you? How could you? C’mon, the oral portion is also part of the fire test and if you ace that and not the written, well, it sort of suggests to me you’re a smart person who didn’t take the written part that seriously—- better luck next time, right?

posted by: unReal on February 11, 2010  2:14pm

Anon,

If you don’t know these individuals as they are in the firehouse, please don’t try and comment about how you THINK they might be there. I work with them… They are far from great firefighters… One is a complete coward when it comes to a fire,m and somehow always remains out on the sidewalk, and the other is a belligerent bully with an affinity for booze who’s “compassion” only extends to one race. Stop looking at the issue through rose colored glasses. There are those of us on the inside who see right through the legal spin…

posted by: To Anon on February 11, 2010  10:54pm

To “Anon”: You would be wrong to think that someone who does well on the oral part of the exam must knows alot about firefighting.  The oral part asks questions that don’t have anything to do with firefighting - stuff like department rules, personnel laws and practices, etc.  The written exam is what really tests a firefighters’ knowledge of the profession, firefighting and emergency response management. When a department is roiled by race-fights over exams, if you switch to a subjective test (versus an objective written test), you will likely get (and there are proven cases of this) corruption in the scoring because the city is desperate to avoid adverse impact and their exam scorers are under pressure to “deliver” the desired race results. A written exam does not “see” the race of the person taking it.  An assessment center and other oral tests are a farce and not suitable for the fire profession anyway.  To use a politically incorrect term, it’s for the retarded to get by. It’s really a shame when, for reasons of race diversity, a city moves over to a test it can “skew” to get what you want by way of results. The results you get are morons who don’t belong on the force to begin with, who drink, drug, get arrested and hang out with felons.

posted by: Missing in the Print on February 11, 2010  11:16pm

I just read this story line for line against the transcripts and comments.  This reporter did write a very skewed report.  Artherton did make another disclosure to Torre that she and Attorney David Rosen were together at a judicial retreat and took the opportunity to discuss with each Rosen’s lawsuits challenging civil service tests. This was right when the Ricci decision was coming down from the Supremes. Before this, Rosen tells Torre he is not a lawyer for anyone connected to the case. Not long after he talks with Arterton, Rosen intervenes in Torre’s case (after all these years) with a lawsuit for a black client challenging the exams in the Ricci case and brings his complaint before Arterton.  Who has a problem with this picture? Or can’t understand why Torre is asking questions.

posted by: Anon on February 13, 2010  12:09pm

Well, I guess I do like the objectivity of a written test. And I think people need to study hard for it.

Seems pretty simple but lord knows, it has been argued up and down to supreme court and back again.

One concern, or couple concerns i have is that the majority of calls are medical calls and bedside manner is definitely an issue. It’s important to be good with people and set them at ease. How do you give points for that on the tests?

I always thought firefighters were the sweetest people on earth until a couple of them ran roughshod so hard on our house here in new haven on a medical call that we had to complain to Dumas, in the chief’s office.

Also, diversity is important to medical calls, or any calls that call on firefighters to interact with the community.

So, I guess what I would say is that if we stick with a written test, we get everyone studying hard, of all colors, because we do need diversity.

I happen to be white. the firefighters who came to our house all happened to be white and one was such a bully. He was incredibly inappropriate to the point where we were scared of him. It made no sense, it was mindboggling and unexpected. We couldn’t figure it out. He was abusive, bad enough but on a medical call really unbelievable.

It was a severe flu that was so bad the person had collapsed. 

I had never seen behavior like that anywhere I had ever ever lived before and had to wonder if New Haven just had some curse. Why does everything have to be so coarse and difficult so often around here? Don’t people who work here know any better?

Anyway, there has to be a way to deal with that too as the residents and the community are who the fire department is supposed to be serving.

I never hear complaints about the behavior of firefighters at the scene of anything, so I hope it was a fluke, but the guy who was the worst of the pack, hard to believe he isn’t that way all the time.

He finally stopped when he was asked if he was raised in a barn. He got this embarassed look of recognition in his eyes as if he had misjudged the background and civility of the people whose house he had just turned upside down. 

I’ll bet he lives out of town in the burbs.

get ANDI

Events Calendar

view the full calendar »

SeeClickFix »

Parking spaces unusable due to weaving traffic illegally passage turning vehicles at intersection
Feb 11, 2012 9:20 pm
Address: Blake St And Valley St New Haven, CT 06515, USA
Rating: 2

Traffic flow is poor many crashes, moves dangerously fast. Should be reclaimed...

more »
dangerously fast traffic
Feb 12, 2012 12:50 pm
Address: 528 Chapel St New Haven, CT 06511, USA
Rating: 6

There is a constant stream of dangerously fast traffic on Chapel Street in Wooster...

more »

Flyerboard

Sponsors

N.H.I. Site Design & Development

smartpill design