View Full Version : Truth comes out: Frank the Firefighter really knows his way around a courtroom

07-11-2009, 12:58 AM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6036842)

KamaAina (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-10-09 07:37 PM
Original message
Truth comes out: Frank the Firefighter really knows his way around a courtroom
if only he'd gone to law school...


Ricci is invariably painted as a reluctant standard-bearer; a hardworking man driven to litigation only when his dreams of promotion were shattered by a system that persecutes white men. This is the narrative we will hear next week, but it somewhat oversimplifies Ricci's actual employment story. For instance, it's not precisely true, as this one account would have it, that Frank Ricci "never once (sought) special treatment for his dyslexia challenge." In point of fact, Ricci sued over it....

According to local newspapers, Ricci filed his first lawsuit against the city of New Haven in 1995, at the ripe old age of 20, for failing to hire him as a firefighter. That January, the Hartford Chronicle reported that Ricci sued, saying "he was not hired because he is dyslexic." The complaint in that suit, filed in federal court, alleged that the city's failure to hire Ricci because of his dyslexia violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frank Ricci was one of 795 candidates interviewed for 40 jobs. According to his complaint, the reason he was not hired was that he disclosed his dyslexia in an interview. That case was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees.

In 1998, Ricci was talking about filing lawsuits again, this time over a dispute with his new employer, Middletown's South Fire District—which had hired him in August of 1997. According to a Hartford Courant report of Aug. 11, 1998, Ricci was dismissed from the Middletown fire department after only eight months. He promptly appealed his dismissal, claiming that fire officials had retaliated against him for conducting an investigation into the department's response to a controversial fire. A story in the Hartford Courant dated Aug. 9, 1997, has Ricci vowing "to pursue this to the fullest extent of the law."...

The other way to look at Frank Ricci is as a serial plaintiff—one who reacts to professional slights and setbacks by filing suit, threatening to file suit, and more or less complaining his way up the chain of command. That's not the typical GOP heartthrob, but I look forward to hearing Sen. Cornyn's version of that speech next week as well.


rurallib (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-10-09 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
3. Rosa Parks was an activist who is always painted as an accidental heroine

The incident in Birmingham(?) was not exactly an accident. I am not in any way saying Rosa Parks is not a hero, just that the NAACP knew that if pushed somebody would create a scene that could bring about change.

Seems like Ricci is sort of the anti-Parks. Someone used by those wishing to spark an incident to turn the clock back.Thanks so much for this little extra insight that strips away the veneer of accidental crusader.
ETA and a kickerooni to the greatest page. It's nobel for Rosa Parks to stand up for herself, but not Frank Ricci.

Rage for Order (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-10-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #4
26. Really?
He's (Frank Ricci's) really not that different from people who make their living by falling down in parking lots next to Sears, KMart, Macy's, Bloomingdales, Nordstrom.

By all accounts he is very good at his job, i.e. being a firefighter. That's quite a bit different than being a professional con artist who files baseless lawsuits for a living. It's not surprising that you view this man with scorn and derision. He upset your template of how you think the world should work. This pisses you off, and you must tear him down regardless of how dishonest your claims have to be in order to do so.

Fuzz (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-10-09 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
6. So, the right's new hero is a serial litigator? Nice.

Ignis (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-10-09 09:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
24. Oh, the delicious irony!
Next time your favorite Rightie starts blathering about that awful state of the legal system in the US, remind of them of Lawsuit Frank.

ShadowLiberal (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-10-09 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
14. That's why Ricci should have just stayed home after winng his SC case, these attacks
I thought Ricci seemed to have decided to not bother to speak about Sotomayor after his long period of no comments, guess I was wrong and he was just being quiet till the Supreme Court ruled on his case.

Now Ricci only has everything to lose by speaking against Sotomayor, he has to put up with people who support Sotomayor's nomination digging up all the dirt on him, and will inevitably start to get negative and embarrassing stories about him run on the national news. It's not worth that kind of hassle, it would have been better for him to just stay out of the spotlight after he won his case.
Shadow admits that the left will dig up dirt just because they don't agree with him winning. The message: Shut up or we'll destroy you.

KamaAina (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-10-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Only one court disagreed.
The one stacked with right-wing ideologues by Reagan and the Bushes.

Now the RW is using this guy to try to bork Sotomayor.

ColbertWatcher (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-10-09 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
20. Thank you. This certainly puts a different light on Frankie's story. k+r, n/t

And here's the take down by Rage for Order.

Rage for Order (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-10-09 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
25. I love the smell of character assassination in the morning
Talk about your two-bit hit pieces.

The author of the Slate article is deliberately taking part of the referenced article out of context:

"For instance, it's not precisely true, as this one account would have it, that Frank Ricci "never once (sought) special treatment for his dyslexia challenge." In point of fact, Ricci sued over it...."

Nevermind the fact that the linked-to article doesn't even have an author's name attached to it. In fact, the referenced article is in no way connected to Frank Ricci except for the fact that it happens to be written about him, not by him. Leaving all of that aside, even if one were to confer any legitimacy to the linked-to article, clearly the author was referring to Frank Ricci not requesting "special treatment for his dyslexia challenge" with regard to taking the test. Here is the full context of what Slate cherry-picked:

That promotion, as the whole world knows by now, is based in large part on taking a test and scoring well on it. Suffering with dyslexia Mr. Ricci has a tremendously hard time studying for and taking exams. With the characteristic tenacity and dedication that most firefighters display on a daily basis Mr.Ricci persevered in the face of such daunting odds. He spent his own money to purchase tutorial book to study for the exam. To make up for the dyslexia he hired, with his own money, a person to read and record the books so that he could study the material by listening to it and thus somewhat nullify the effects of dyslexia. Never once did Mr.Ricci request special treatment for his dyslexia challenge.

Slate says Ricci sued New Haven 14 years ago, in 1995, under the Americans with Disabilities Act for not hiring him because he is dyslexic. That is obviously an entirely separate issue, and it is intellectually dishonest to imply that Frank Ricci lied about not requesting a reasonable accomodation (which he is legally entitled to under the ADA, by the way) for his dyslexia when taking the test that resulted in the lawsuit that ended up in front of the Supreme Court.

In short, the author of the Slate article is a two-bit hack who is at best disingeuous, and at worst a flat out liar.

07-11-2009, 01:35 AM
Just take a sec to take in what these idiots on DU are trying to say: That being black is a disability. Sure these DUmmies are too stupid to realize what they're saying or insinuating but it's pretty funny just the same.

Dan D. Doty
07-11-2009, 10:33 AM
Shadow admits that the left will dig up dirt just because they don't agree with him winning. The message: Shut up or we'll destroy you.

That's the way they've been acting for over ten years; and they're not going to start acting like rational human beings anytime soon. Disagree with us and we'll carpet bomb your life.