Ricci v. DeStefano

  • July 27, 2009
    Guest Post

    By David A. Drachsler, Vice Chairman of the Virginia Council on Human Rights & a retired U.S. Department of Labor attorney

    The Supreme Court's decision in Ricci v. DeStefano may have effectively invalidated the federal Testing Guidelines. The Testing Guidelines, developed almost 40 years ago, require that employers who use any selection procedure for employment or promotion, including written tests, that screens out significantly more members of one group than another, must "validate" those procedures. They must show by scientifically accepted statistical methods that the tests actually measure a person's ability to perform the job successfully, that is, that the test is "job related."

    Most of the focus on the June 29 decision in Ricci was on the Court's new standard for determining whether an employer can throw out the results of a test -- it can do so only when it has a "strong basis in evidence" that the test is not job related and justified by business necessity. But at the end of the decision, the Court directed the lower courts about how this case, and presumably similar ones, should be handled in the future:

  • July 13, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Lawrence F. Keller, Associate Professor, Cleveland State University

    The upcoming confirmation hearings on Sotomayor highlight three trouble issues. I share my assessment of the issues to understand better both the process of judicial appointments and the person qua judge.

    First, confirmation hearings need to deal more substantively with the nature of law in a republic than with specific legal decisions. I realize these are partisan appointments but a hearing is an opportunity to educate the public. Ideally, such an approach could expose the fallacy that judicial activism is contrary to the nature of our legal system. The beauty and strength of the common law was how judges crafted law, often involving the community and certainly building on community norms. They did this while dealing with real cases and real people. As a result their law was often more thoughtful than the work of partisan legislators. Moreover, judges also dealt seriously with both precedence and coherence for the body of the law itself. When the law became rigid and needed reform, legislators had a coherent body of rules and regulations developed over time from community based principles from which to craft remediation. This helped sharpen the legislative process itself.

  • July 7, 2009
    Following his participation at the Supreme Court OT08 review hosted by ACS, John Payton talked with ACSblog about the high court's recent decision in Ricci v. DeStefano and what he observes that "Justice Ginsburg in dissent says she believes that New Haven could have satisfied the new standard Justice Kennedy set forth, but [the majority] didn't give them a chance. Quite extraordinary."

    Watch Payton's interview below or download a podcast here.

  • June 30, 2009
    Guest Post


    By Helen Louise Norton, Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School. Prof. Norton's analysis of Ricci v. DeStefano is part of an ACS online symposium, "Experts on Ricci," being published here.
    The Ricci majority takes the view that an employer who seeks to avoid using a test because it may discriminate against some has engaged in intentional discrimination against others. In so holding, the majority characterizes New Haven as declining to use the test in question "solely because the higher scoring candidates were white." The facts, however, are considerably more complicated: not only did the city's test impose a significant disparate impact against firefighters of color, but substantial uncertainty and controversy remain over the availability of less discriminatory, more accurate alternatives as well as the exam's ability to identify successful leaders. Indeed, in contrast to New Haven's exam - which relied only on a paper-and-pencil test and an oral interview to evaluate leadership potential -- two-thirds of fire departments surveyed use assessment centers that evaluate candidates for supervisory positions by requiring them to respond to real-world situations.

  • June 30, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Sarah C. Crawford, Senior Counsel for the Employment Discrimination Project, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Ms. Crawford previewed oral arguments in
    Ricci v. DeStefano on ACSblog here. This analysis is part of an ACS online symposium, "Experts on Ricci," being published here.

    "The . . . standard [announced by the majority], as barely described in general, and cavalierly applied in this case, makes voluntary compliance a hazardous venture."
    --Justice Ginsburg, writing for the dissent

    In the 5-4 decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, a narrow majority of justices on the Supreme Court concluded that the city of New Haven, Conn. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it declined to make promotions in the fire department on the basis of a test that screened out almost all of the minority test-takers. With this decision, the Court has endangered critical equal employment opportunity safeguards that have been in place for decades to encourage employers to utilize tests that are both fair and effective.

    Despite the rulings below for the city and fervent arguments on appeal from both civil rights groups and employer groups in defense of the city's actions, most expected the majority to rule along ideological grounds for the Ricci plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the decision offered a number of surprises, particularly in terms of how far the Court was willing to go to rule for these plaintiffs.

    Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the decision is the disregard for the fundamental rule of statutory construction to look to the plain language of a statute and the underlying congressional intent. Looking to the plain language of Title VII, Congress clearly intended for employers to ensure that tests are "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity" and to adopt "alternative employment practice[s]" that would lessen a disparate impact. This decision contravenes the clear legislative language and intent of Title VII.