By William Kaempffer
The New Haven Register
NEW HAVEN, Conn. — A federal judge has rejected a request by the “New Haven 20" firefighters to oust their presiding judge whose impartiality they called into question in the landmark employment discrimination case.
Judge Janet Bond Arterton had indicated in February she saw no reason to recuse herself in Ricci v. DeStefano. On Monday, in a 15- page decision, U.S. District Judge Peter Dorsey concluded the same thing and denied a motion seeking Arterton’s removal.
While the firefighters didn’t accuse Arterton of actual bias, they argued her actions had created that perception.
The question posed to Dorsey was: Would a reasonable person, knowing the facts, conclude the trial judge’s impartiality could be reasonably questioned?
Attorney Karen Torre, who represents the one Hispanic and 19 white firefighters, argued the answer was yes. In her motion, Torre pointed to Arterton’s former law firm’s representation 20 years ago of the Firebirds Society, an organization for black firefighters whose now president and other members in December 2009 attempted to intervene in the Ricci case and halt any promotions; her friendly relationship and out-of-court communication with a local attorney who represents another black firefighter with an interest in the case; her previous rulings and conduct in Ricci proceedings, and extrajudicial public statements Arterton made regarding race and gender discrimination.
In February, Torre submitted a legal filing seeking her recusal. Arterton recused herself in deciding the motion; it was assigned to Dorsey.
Addressing each point, Dorsey ruled none “cast doubt on Judge Arterton’s impartiality in this matter.”
“The City is gratified by today’s ruling,” New Haven Corporation Counsel Victor Bolden, who opposed the recusal request, said Monday in a statement. “It allows the City to move forward and resolve the remaining aspects of the Ricci case without further delay.”
Torre expressed no surprise at the decision.
“We’ve become so used to unfavorable rulings from this court that, sadly, it’s become a default expectation for us. Recusal motions are rarely if ever granted by the local court; in those cases where recusal was ordered, it was by an appellate court,” she said in a statement. “We didn’t give up before and we won’t now. We feel very strongly about this.”
As for Torre’s arguments, Dorsey reasoned Arterton’s relationship to the Firebirds is “too remote to create an appearance of bias” and referred to Torre’s 2006 statements in court that Arterton’s former firm’s representation of the group was “irrelevant.”
He found no issue with Arterton’s “purportedly questionable relationship” with attorney David Rosen or with her previous rulings in Ricci.
On Arterton’s public comments about racial and gender discrimination, Dorsey said “federal judges do not lose their right to express their opinions on legal and policy issues once they are appointed to the bench.”
The Ricci case dates to 2004, when the city threw out two Fire Department promotional exams after learning black firefighters scored disproportionately poorly. A group of mainly white firefighters, led by Firefighter Frank Ricci, sued claiming city actions discriminated against them.
In 2006, Arterton threw out the lawsuit; her decision was upheld on appeal. Last year, however, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision, ruled in the white firefighters’ favor and sent the case to the lower court for a trial on damages, landing back in Arterton’s Church Street courtroom.
In December, 14 of the 20 firefighters were promoted under court order.
Copyright 2010 ProQuest Information and Learning
All Rights Reserved
ProQuest SuperText
Copyright 2010 Journal Register Co.