Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
Ricci v. DeStefano
Ricci v. DeStefano is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2009. The court found that the city of New Haven violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in discarding the results of exams, and that the city did not have a strong basis of evidence to believe they would be subject to disparate impact liability in doing so.[1][2]
Background
Disparate impact
- See also: Disparate impact
Disparate impact is a legal theory of discrimination liability that holds employers, housing authorities and other entities accountable for practices that have discriminatory effects on groups protected under anti-discrimination laws, even when there is no intent to discriminate. This differs from disparate treatment, in which the discrimination is overt and intentional. Disparate impact cases do not require proof of discriminatory motive on the part of the defendant, but are still quite difficult to prove. Though the United States Supreme Court first validated disparate impact theory in 1971, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been a consistent defender of the theory since it began operating in 1966. Later rulings by the court weakened the disparate impact argument, such as Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio. The theory has remained controversial, since some argue it conflicts with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides for equal treatment under the law. [3][4][5]
Case History
The New Haven Fire Department used written exams as part of the process to fill vacant managerial positions, with the exams accounting for 60 percent of the overall assessment of a candidate. City officials found that the pass rate for black candidates was approximately half the rate of white candidates. Under the assessment rules, no black candidate who applied in 2003 could have been promoted. The New Haven Civil Service Board, considering the disparate impact these results would have on employment, decided not to certify any of the candidates that applied in 2003. The officials feared they would be open to a lawsuit over the disparate impact of the test if they promoted no black candidates. Frank Ricci and other firefighters who had scored well enough on the exam to be promoted had they been certified brought suit against the department, alleging that their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated. The federal district court found in favor of the city, dismissing Ricci's claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the lower court decision. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on January 9, 2009.[6][7]
Decision
On June 29, 2009, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found in favor of Ricci. The majority held that, in discarding the exams, the city had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The majority held that before taking an action of intentional discrimination in order to prevent disparate impact, an employer must have a strong basis in evidence that they will be subject to disparate impact liability,. The court found that the city had failed to do so, as the exams were job-related, consistent with business necessity, and there was no evidence that an equally-valid, less-discriminatory alternative was available. The majority was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.[1][2]
Kennedy wrote the following in the majority opinion:[2]
| “ | Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions. Discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim.[8] | ” |
| —Justice Anthony Kennedy | ||
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer dissented. Ginsburg argued in her dissent that the court ignored the flaws in the test that New Haven used, and that it failed to acknowledge better tests used in other cities.[9]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Oyez.org, "RICCI v. DESTEFANO," accessed July 17, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 SupremeCourt.gov, "RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO ET AL.," accessed July 17, 2015
- ↑ The Free Dictionary, "Disparate Impact," accessed March 9, 2015
- ↑ FindLaw, "Disparate Impact Discrimination," accessed March 9, 2015
- ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "1966," accessed March 9, 2015
- ↑ law.cornell.edu, Ricci v. DeStefano (07-1428); Ricci v. DeStefano (08-328)," accessed July 17, 2015
- ↑ NPR, "Supreme Court Hears Major Civil Rights Cases," April 21, 2009
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ law.cornell.edu, "RICCI v. DeSTEFANO (Nos. 07-1428 and 08-328) 530 F. 3d 87, reversed and remanded.," June 29, 2009
