丹尼斯·L·鲁宾（Dennis L. Rubin）
“Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the United States District Court are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for this court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court! All rise, the Honorable Judge Forrester is presiding.” With the bailiff serving as the court crier, the next lawsuit in which I was a named as a defendant was now officially underway. This legal proceeding seemed like it was a scene from the motion picture “Groundhog Day,” in which the characters re-live February 2 over and over again until male lead (Bill Murray) figures out how to get the leading lady to fall in love with him. The connection to this trial is that I find myself back in the same Atlanta courthouse only after a short break from completing a very similar case, going through the same legal process.
这个具体案件花了很多时间来绕过法院的案卷。奇怪的是，我离开了亚特兰大（佐治亚州）消防救援Department on April 15, 2007, to go to work in my hometown in Washington, D.C. This reverse-discrimination claim was just reaching the court system on July 17, 2012, more than five years after I left Atlanta employment. It was about seven years or so from when the alleged harm was endured by three former Atlanta city workers. Sometimes, the wheels of justice grind slow, and this was one of those circumstances. The Richard B. Russell Federal Courthouse was becoming a far too familiar setting for me; I once again found myself sitting at the defense table. However, the complaints filed against the city and I were quite unusual, compared to all of the previous cases. This time, three battalion chiefs claimed that the city of Atlanta and I were guilty of reversediscrimination. The charging document went into some detail (as they all to do) about my bias towards only promoting black members to senior ranks within the department. Further, the specifications in this document indicated that three black chiefs were promoted into senior ranks because city hall directed me topromote仅非裔美国人成员。书面投诉继续指出，本诉讼中列出的所有三名白人成员都比黑人同行更有资格。
I thought that surely someone in the legal system would check the records and determine that this was not the truth and dismiss this bogus action. In fact, this claim against me was not close to the truth. The record reflected that I had the opportunity to promote five members to the rank of deputy fire chief (four trumpets– second level in command of the organization) during the time in dispute. Of the five promoted, three were white members, one was an Asian, and one was a black member. Only 20 percent of the promoted folks (one person in all) was black in the deputy chief group. Next, I promoted seven assistant fire chiefs (three trumpets–third level in command of the organization) during the specified time. The breakdown by race among the assistant fire chiefs that I promoted was 43 percent white and 57 percent black. The overall ratio of senior chief officers promoted was 58.5 percent non-black members, whereas 41.5 percent of those promoted during the timeline spelled out in the complaint were black members.
这些事实已经建立得很好，并且清楚地表明，现实中发生了截然不同的事情，与我所指责这三名城市工人所做的事情发生了截然不同的事情。我认为，法官肯定会以偏见[1]驳回此案。当然，那不是，我坐在那里抬头看着橡树法官的替补席。当陪审团被选中时，原告的律师只有“殴打”有色人种。这项开幕诉讼使主持法官感到惊讶。在选拔最终确定之前，法官向一对律师发出了非常严厉的警告。他的荣誉洞察力的话听起来像这样：“……对于针对逆向歧视的诉讼，原告不应在陪审团选择过程中展示公然歧视的情况。原告只袭击有色人种的事实并未在这个法庭上丢失。”看来他的荣誉受到了这种愚蠢的影响。他不允许原告计划用来消除第四个有色人种的最后陪审团罢工。 Wow, maybe sitting through another case wouldn’t be so bad after all.
该案的结构和法治
Once the jury of eight was impaneled (civil trials have eight jurors, whereas criminal trials use 12 jurors in the federal system), the judge directed them to go to the jury room. It was at this time the judge discussed the “rule of law” as it pertained to essences of this case to the open courtroom without the jury present. Neither side would be allowed to provide any testimony as to why one member was selected over any another member for the promotions in question. No discussions about an individual member’s certifications, education, training, experience, background, and job performance were to be a part of this case. It was at this point that I realized it would be a challenge for the city of亚特兰大to prevail.
As I heard the judge’s pretrial instructions, I realized that just about all of my trial preparation and thought processes would be inadmissible. The scales of justice are cast wearing a blindfold. Issues of fact, such as the fact that all three of the plaintiffs had had been passed over for promotion by several fire chiefs before I was appointed, could not be used in the trial testimony. The three workers had the opportunity to be promoted by three fire chiefs after my watch; only one of the three was promoted. One of my accusers (the only one promoted after I left the department) was subsequently demoted and reduced two ranks shortly after his promotion, but again this fact would not be introduced during this hearing. Another member of the plaintiff’s group requested a voluntary demotion to avoid being assigned to a day-work position. Apparently a staff position at亚特兰大Fire would interfere with his second full-time job with another fire department. Of course, as you probably guessed, this information would not be brought up in this trial.
The rule of law dictated that no facts would be discussed about the plaintiffs’ performance, skills, knowledge, abilities, or organizational commitment. This case would not focus on any of those critical job skill elements. The case would be won or lost on whether discrimination was exhibited by me and could be proved by the plaintiffs. The question is whether or not I had established an environment of reverse discrimination within the organization that prevented the promotion of this trio regardless of whether they had the requisite skills, knowledge and abilities to perform the duties associated with the ranks that they felt that they deserved.
我认为的另一个非常合适的项目对于陪审团的声音以帮助他们解决此案，这是最近相关的亚特兰大消防救援诉讼。在较早的情况下，我成功地捍卫了这座城市和我本人在同一法院。有趣的是，该诉讼声称我拒绝将黑人成员晋升为首席官员。较早的案件是我现在面临的说法的完全相反，并且逆转了。经过五天的审判和两天的审议之后，较早的案件中的陪审团发现这座城市，我无罪。实际上，纽约市要求并授予与原告辩护此案有关的费用和法律费用。市长在每周的内阁会议上发表评论（因为这两个案件都在当地媒体上进行了讨论）：“鲁宾酋长必须做正确的事。如果他同时被指控歧视和反向歧视，那是不可能的。”
The rule of law blocked information (job performance, lack of promotions, demotions, previous lawsuits, etc.) that seemed like the best way to demonstrate the truth in this or any case about a promotional process. I had hoped that these facts would go a long way to prove my innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, once and for all. But the “rule of law” would forbid this information to be presented.
The story of this trial continues next month in part 2.
ENDNOTES
[1] Contrary to the way it may sound, dismissal with prejudice means that the case is thrown out of court and the plaintiff is barred from ever filing another suit about the same claim.
[2] Both the plaintiff and defendant attorneys can remove any potential juror from being impaneled on the jury by asking the Judge to “strike” those potential jurors from the pool.
MORE DENNIS RUBIN
- 处理严重的不良行为，第一部分
- 处理严重的不良行为，第2部分
- 处理严重的不良行为，第3部分
- 处理严重的不良行为，第4部分
- Managing the Information Flow at Large-Scale Emergency Incidents
- Chief Lessons: When the Cyberbully Attacks
如果您喜欢这些信息，丹尼斯·鲁宾（Dennis Rubin188金宝搏是正规吗:D.C. Fire.更多信息fo,CLICK这里.
Dennis L. Rubin是消防保护公司D.L.的主要合作伙伴鲁宾和同事。他在消防和救援部门的经验跨越了35年以上。他曾担任company officer, command level officer, or fire chief in several major cities, including Dothan, Alabama; Norfolk, Virginia; Atlanta, Georgia; and Washington, D.C. He served on several committees with the International Association of Fire Chiefs, including a two-year term as theHealth and Safety委员会主席。他是一个大学的毕业生Maryland.
