Posted on June 30, 2009

Supreme Court overtuns Ricci

The Court’s analysis begins with the premise that the City’s actions would violate Title VII’s disparate-treatment prohibition absent some valid defense. All the evidence demonstrates that the City rejected the test results because the higher scoring candidates were white.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 07–1428. Argued April 22, 2009—Decided June 29, 2009*
New Haven, Conn. (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 thatwhite candidates had outperformed minority candidates, a rancorous public debate ensued. Confronted with arguments both for and against certifying the test results—and threats of a lawsuit eitherway—the 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, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendants responded that had they certified the test results, they could have faced Title VII liability for adopting a practice having a disparate impact on minority firefighters. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the Second Circuit affirmed.
Held: The City’s action in discarding the tests violated Title VII. Pp. 16–34.
(a) Title VII prohibits intentional acts of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–2(a)(1) (disparate treatment), as well as policies or practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities, §2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(i) (disparate impact). Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case of…
——————
*Together with No. 08–328, Ricci et al. v. DeStefano et al., also on certiorari to the same court.

Source:
Supreme Court overtuns Ricci
supremecourtus.gov

Send this site to a friend! (click here)

Leave a Comment

eNews & Updates

Sign up to receive breaking news
as well as receive other site updates!

We will not spam you, or sell, rent, exchange, or otherwise share your email address with a third party.

Monthly Archive

 
NATIONAL POLICY INSTITUTE
P. O. Box 3465
Augusta, GA 30914
Phone 706-736-4884
Fax 706-733-7652
nationalpolicyinstitute.org
E-Mail npi@nationalpolicyinstitute.org

CHAIRMAN

Louis R. Andrews

DIRECTORS

Richard Spencer
Louis R. Andrews
Lou Calabro
John Gardner
Anthony Hilton
Mark Stradley

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

(in formation)
Miles Wolpin, Ph.D., J.D.
Anthony Hilton, Ph.D.
James Owens, Ph.D.
Ralph Scott, Ph.D.
Disclaimer
NPI publications are not to be construed as necessarily reflecting the corporate views of the National Policy Institute or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the Congress of the United States.

The National Policy Institute is classified as a Section 501 (c) (3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code. Individuals, foundations, corporations, and associations may support the educational and research work of NPI through tax-deductible gifts.

The National Policy Institute does not rent, sell, or publicize its contributor lists.
News Releases
Learn more about us debt.
Feeds

Of further interest

Ink Cartridges

spacer