Opinion ID: 371157
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discrimination Against White Officers

Text: 15 The district court made extensive findings of fact, many of which are attacked on appeal as clearly erroneous. In support of its conclusion that affirmative action discriminated against white officers, the court found, There was, in actuality, two (promotion eligibility) lists, one for white males and one for black males. 446 F.Supp. at 987. 16 The district court further found that affirmative action promotions resulted in the advancement of less qualified persons, stating: 17 The testimony consistently was, and this Court finds to be fact, that the higher a candidate stood on the eligibility register the better qualified and equipped he was to assume the position of Sergeant. The above mentioned witnesses testified, and the Court accepts as fact, that application of the model was intended to, and in fact did, demonstrate relative differences in potential job performance. Further, these witnesses testified, and this Court accepts as fact, that the candidates, positioned on the register were not, as defendants claimed, equally qualified or a pool of qualified candidates. 26 18 26. Defendants presented the Court with no evidence, other than bald assertions by Tannian, to support the claim that these candidates were equally qualified. 19 446 F.Supp. at 994. 20 The finding of discrimination against white candidates for promotion was supported by the further finding that from December 1973 through 1976 the examination component of the promotional model conformed with standards promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and measured relative differences of probable job success between candidates for promotion. Id. at 990. In addition, the court found that all of these written exams for promotion to sergeant were job related and content valid. 21