Term: 2008
Docket: 07-1428
Frank Ricci, Et Al. v. John Destefano Et Al.
- Pro
07-1428 RICCI V. DeSTEFANO DECISION BELOW: 264 Fed. Appx. 106 CONSOLIDATED WITH 08-328 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE. CERT. GRANTED 1/9/2009 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case presents recurring issues regarding proper application of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause to the civil service. Petitioners, New Haven firefighters and lieutenants, qualified for promotion to command positions pursuant to job-related examinations and merit selection rules mandated by local law. Citing the race of the successful candidates and Title VII's "disparate impact" provision, city officials refused to promote the petitioners. 1. When an otherwise valid civil service selection process yields unintended racially disproportionate results, may municipalities reject the results and the successful candidates for reasons of race absent the demonstration required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 2(k)? 2. Does 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(l) which makes it unlawful for employers "to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race ... ," permit employers to refuse to act on the results of such tests for reasons of race? 3. If, citing the public interest in eradicating political patronage, racism and corruption in civil service, a state's highest court mandates strict compliance with local laws requiring race-blind competitive merit selection procedures, does 42 U.S.C. §2000e-7 permit federal courts to relieve municipalities from compliance with such laws? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-4996-cv
The case of Frank Ricci et al. v. John DeStefano et al., also known as the New Haven Firefighters Affirmative Action Case, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on workplace discrimination. The city of New Haven, Connecticut had administered promotional exams for its fire department but discarded the results because no African-American firefighters scored high enough to qualify for promotion, fearing potential racial discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of Civil Rights Act 1964. A group of white and Hispanic firefighters led by Frank Ricci sued the city claiming reverse discrimination under both Title VII and Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. In a 5-4 ruling in favor of Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs in June 2009, the court held that before an employer can engage in intentional race-based remediation like discarding test scores to address racial disparities (disparate impact), it must have strong evidence that it would be subject to disparate-impact liability if it did not take such action; fear alone is insufficient reason to discriminate against another group based on their race.
In the dissenting opinion for Ricci v. DeStefano, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority had failed to acknowledge the complexities of race in America and did not fully understand or appreciate the purpose behind Title VII of Civil Rights Act. She believed that New Haven's decision to discard test results was a valid attempt to address racial disparities and comply with federal law, rather than an act of reverse discrimination as suggested by plaintiffs. The city feared it would be sued for unintentional racism if it certified results from a test where no African-Americans scored high enough for promotion. According to her, this fear was justified given past cases where tests like these were deemed discriminatory due their disparate impact on minority groups. Thus, she disagreed with majority’s view that discarding such tests constituted intentional discrimination against white candidates under Title VII unless there is strong basis in evidence showing they would lose a disparate-impact lawsuit.
