From: Federal Employment Law Articles
On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited
decision in Ricci, et al. v. Destefano, et al., also known as the
New Haven firefighters “reverse”
discrimination case. The case is significant because it establishes
that an employer may not manipulate the results of legitimate,
job-related promotional examinations to obtain a more diverse
workforce absent a showing that there is a strong basis in evidence
to believe the employer will be subject to disparate impact
liability if it fails to take the race conscious discriminatory
action. The case breaks new ground by resolving potential conflicts
between disparate treatment and disparate impact claims, and
presents new challenges for employers faced with potential
litigation arising from testing requirements or other
facially-neu...
Respond to this topic on your own blog
Click and press Ctrl+C to copy and paste this discussion on your blog or site
Related Articles
Ricci v. DeSteffano: Talk about A Rock And A Hard Place: Employers Required To Pick Between Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Claims.
On June 29, 2009, Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority of
the U.S. Supreme Court, issued the long-awaited decision in Ricci
v. DeSteffano, a "reverse race discrimination" case arising out of
the City of New Haven, Connecticut's Civil Service Board's ("CSB")
decision not to use the results of promotional examinations. The
Court held that CSB engaged in disparate treatment race
discrimination against white firefighters when it decided not to
certify test results showing a disparate impact on certain
firefighters of color.1 In making its decision, the CSB considered
evidence that the selection process may not have been job-related
and consistent with business necessity and that an alternative
employment practice having less of a disparate impact and serving
its legitimate business need...
Supreme Court Holds that an Employer Cannot Make a Race-Based Decision to Avoid Possible Title VII Adverse Impact Claims Unless there is a Strong Basis in Evidence of Disparate Impact Liability.
In Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009 WL 1835138 (June 29, 2009), a 5-4
majority of the Supreme Court held that the city of New Haven,
Connecticut unlawfully discriminated against top-scoring white and
Hispanic firefighters by rejecting the results of a
promotion-qualifying exam to avoid a possible claim from black
candidates who had not tested as well. In so doing, the court ruled
that "before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination
for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional
disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in fact to
believe that it will be subject to disparate impact liability if it
fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action."
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Firefighters in High-Profile Discrimination Case, Sets New Standard for Evaluating Disparate Treatment Versus Disparate Impact.
Today the Supreme Court resolved an inherent tension between Title
VII's disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions, holding
that the mere desire to avoid liability under Title VII's disparate
impact provision does not automatically justify a conscious
decision to violate the statute's disparate treatment provision.
See Ricci v. DeStefano (June 29, 2009). Title VII's disparate
treatment provision prohibits intentional discrimination on the
basis of a protected category, while the disparate impact provision
prohibits certain practices that are not intended to discriminate
but, in fact, have a disproportionately adverse effect on
minorities. Recognizing the difficulty employers may face in
balancing these competing interests, the Court adopted a "strong
basis in evidence" test to be...
High Court Issues Ruling In Reverse Bias Case.
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 ruling, that the
City of New Haven's decision to discard test results that were used
to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Anthony
Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that the City's race-based
rejection of the test results cannot satisfy the
"strong-basis-in-evidence standard," which the Court adopted to
resolve conflicts between Title VII's disparate treatment and
disparate impact provisions. According to the Court, "[f]ear of
litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to
the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and
qualified for promotions."
High Court Issues Ruling In Reverse Bias Case.
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 ruling, that the
City of New Haven's decision to discard test results that were used
to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion
violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Anthony
Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that the City's race-based
rejection of the test results cannot satisfy the
"strong-basis-in-evidence standard," which the Court adopted to
resolve conflicts between Title VII's disparate treatment and
disparate impact provisions. According to the Court, "[f]ear of
litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to
the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and
qualified for promotions."
