ShareThis Page
Rebuking Perez |

Rebuking Perez

A federal judge’s ruling rejecting a pernicious legal doctrine supported by Labor Secretary Thomas Perez — and accusing him of gaming the system — is a welcome setback for “disparate impact” and a reminder that Mr. Perez, many liberals’ choice to succeed Eric Holder as attorney general, is unfit for that role.

In a lawsuit filed by insurance industry groups, Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a Department of Housing and Urban Development attempt to allow use of disparate impact — statistical analysis that merely shows different outcomes for different demographic groups — to prove discrimination in Fair Housing Act complaints.

Thus, winning a housing complaint still requires proving intentional discrimination, according to The Washington Times.

The judge said HUD “is yet another example of an administrative agency trying desperately to write into law that which Congress never intended to sanction.” And he called it “troubling” that Perez had avoided a potential Supreme Court ruling against disparate impact by negotiating a settlement that took another case off the justices’ docket.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will follow Judge Leon’s lead in a disparate impact case now before it. That would reinforce how ill-suited Perez is to be attorney general — and why he never should have become Labor secretary.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.