978-0078023859 Case20_2

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 2
subject Words 912
subject Authors Daniel Cahoy, Marisa Pagnattaro

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
Case 20.2
RICCI V. DeSTEFANO
Supreme Court of the United States
557 U.S. 557; 129 S. Ct. 2658; 2009 U.S. LEXIS 4945 [June 29, 2009]
FACTS:
New Haven, Connecticut (City) uses objective examinations to identify those firefighters best
qualified for promotion.
When the results of such an exam to fill vacant lieutenant and captain positions showed that white
candidates had outperformed minority candidates, a rancorous public debate ensured.
On the captain exam, the pass rate for white candidates was 64 percent, but was 37.5 percent for
both black and Hispanic candidates. On the lieutenant exam, the pass rate for white candidates
was 58.1 percent; for black candidates, 31.6 percent; and for Hispanic candidates, 20 percent.
The exam was developed and administered by an outside company, Industrial/Organizational
Solutions, Inc. (IOS).
Each test had 100 questions, as required by the Civil Service Board (CSB) rules, and was written
below a 10th-grade reading level. The job-analysis questionnaires included oversampling minority
firefighters to ensure that the resultswhich IOS would use to develop the examinationswould
not unintentionally favor white candidates.
Confronted with arguments both for and against certifying the test resultsand threats of a
lawsuit either waythe City threw out the results based on the statistical racial disparity.
Petitioners, white and Hispanic firefighters who passed the exams, but were denied a chance at
promotions by the City’s refusal to certify the test results, sued the City and respondent officials,
alleging that discarding the test results discriminated against them based on their race in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Defendants responded that had they certified the test results, they would have faced Title VII
liability for adopting a practice having a disparate impact on minority firefighters.
PROCEDURE: The District Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants, and the Court of
Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE: Did the City, by discarding the test results, discriminate against the Plaintiffs based on their
race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
RULE: “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits employment discrimination on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Title VII prohibits both intentional
discrimination (known as “desperate treatment”) as well as, in some cases practices that are not
intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities (known as
disparate impact).”
REASONING:
page-pf2
1. Under the disparate-impact statute, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie violation by showing that
an employer uses “a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” An employer may defend against liability by
was all the more severe.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
When the City of New Haven undertook to fill vacant lieutenant and captain positions in its fire
department, the promotion and hiring process was governed by the City charter, in addition to
federal and state law. The charter establishes a merit system. That system requires the City to fill
vacancies in the classified civil-service ranks with the most qualified individuals, as determined by
job-related examinations. After each examination, the New Haven CSB certifies a ranked list of
applicants who passed the test. Under the charter’s “rule of three,” the relevant hiring authority
must fill each vacancy by choosing one candidate from the top three scores on the list. Certified

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.