Lexplug logoLexplug

Ricci v. DeStefano

Supreme Court of the United States
557 U.S. ____ (2009) (2009)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employer's race-based action taken to avoid disparate-impact liability under Title VII is permissible only if the employer has a strong basis in evidence to believe it would have been subject to such liability if it had not taken the action.


Facts:

  • The City of New Haven, Connecticut, sought to fill vacant lieutenant and captain positions in its fire department through a competitive examination process as required by its charter.
  • The City contracted with Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc. (IOS) to develop and administer written and oral examinations, which were weighted 60% and 40% respectively.
  • IOS conducted job analyses, oversampling minority firefighters to ensure fairness, and developed the tests based on source materials approved by the New Haven Fire Department.
  • In 2003, firefighters took the examinations. The results showed that white candidates significantly outperformed minority (black and Hispanic) candidates.
  • Based on the pass rates and the City's "rule of three," no black candidates were eligible for the then-vacant lieutenant or captain positions.
  • Faced with threats of a disparate-impact lawsuit from minority firefighters and threats of a disparate-treatment lawsuit from the high-scoring firefighters, the City's Civil Service Board (CSB) held a series of public hearings.
  • Witnesses presented arguments both for and against certifying the results, including testimony about the test's validity and the existence of alternative testing methods.
  • The CSB ultimately deadlocked in a 2-2 vote on whether to certify the results, which, by rule, resulted in the City's decision not to certify them.

Procedural Posture:

  • Frank Ricci and other non-minority firefighters (Petitioners) sued the City of New Haven and several city officials (Respondents) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
  • Petitioners alleged disparate-treatment discrimination in violation of Title VII and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
  • Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondents (the City).
  • Petitioners appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • A panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment in a per curiam opinion.
  • The Second Circuit voted to deny a petition for rehearing en banc.
  • The United States Supreme Court granted Petitioners' writ of certiorari.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employer's action to discard the results of a promotion examination, due to a statistical racial disparity in the results, violate Title VII's prohibition on disparate-treatment discrimination when the stated purpose is to avoid potential disparate-impact liability?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kennedy

Yes. Discarding the examination results based on the racial distribution of scores violates Title VII's disparate-treatment provision. The City's action was an express, race-based decision that can only be justified by a strong basis in evidence showing that it would have faced disparate-impact liability had it certified the results. A mere prima facie case of disparate impact, based on statistics alone, is insufficient to meet this standard. Here, the City lacked a strong basis in evidence to believe the tests were not job-related or that a less discriminatory, equally valid alternative was available. Therefore, its refusal to certify the results was impermissible disparate-treatment discrimination.


Concurring - Justice Scalia

Yes. While I join the majority's opinion in full, it merely postpones the inevitable question of whether Title VII's disparate-impact provisions are consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. These provisions often require employers to make decisions based on racial outcomes to avoid liability, which is a form of racial decisionmaking that appears to be in serious tension with the Equal Protection Clause. The Court will eventually have to confront this fundamental conflict between the disparate-impact statute and constitutional principles.


Concurring - Justice Alito

Yes. I join the majority's opinion in full, but write to emphasize that even under the dissent's more lenient 'good cause' standard, the City's action was unjustified. Substantial evidence in the record suggests the City's claimed fear of a disparate-impact lawsuit was a pretext for its true motivation: a desire to placate a politically important racial constituency. A reasonable jury could find that city officials worked behind the scenes to sabotage the exams for political reasons, which would render their actions unlawful regardless of the legal standard applied.


Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg

No. The City's decision to discard the examination results did not violate Title VII's disparate-treatment provision because the City had good cause to believe it would be vulnerable to a disparate-impact suit if it relied on the results. The 'strong basis in evidence' standard created by the majority is too high and discourages employers from voluntarily complying with Title VII. The City faced stark statistical disparities, a history of discrimination in firefighting, and substantial testimony questioning the validity of the tests and suggesting better, less discriminatory alternatives existed. Its decision was a reasonable and lawful effort to comply with its obligations under Title VII's disparate-impact provision.



Analysis:

This decision establishes the 'strong basis in evidence' standard, significantly raising the bar for employers seeking to take race-conscious actions to avoid disparate-impact liability. It reconciles the tension between Title VII's disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions by giving precedence to the former, making it riskier for employers to discard selection tools that produce racially disparate results. The ruling shifts the legal risk, potentially discouraging voluntary compliance and leading to more litigation where employers must defend the validity of their selection processes rather than proactively seeking less discriminatory alternatives.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"