Web Assignment 1: Ricci v.

DeStefano

Dana Ogle
ID 1081391
MGMT 710
September14, 2010
 1

Web Assignment 1: Ricci v. DeStefano

Ricci v. DeStefano demonstrates the problem employers’ face when trying to build diverse work

environments while abiding by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits racially-based

employment actions. In the case, City of New Haven officials decided to discard fire fighter

employment tests because the tests reflected a disproportionate amount of minorities failing to

meet the job selection requirements. Plaintiff Frank Ricci, one of the white candidates that

satisfied the test requirements, believed that the City acted in a discriminatory manner by

modifying the procedures to benefit minorities. City officials however, declared that they were

acting in good-faith to protect minorities who otherwise would have been adversely affected by

the test results. Ricci, along with several other test takers, asserted that they were in fact the

victims of reverse discrimination and filed a class action suit against the City of New Haven

alleging that “…discarding the test results discriminated against them based on race in violation

of, inter alia, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” (Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009).

In a turn of events, the final ruling on Ricci v. DeStefano was issued from the U.S. Supreme

Court in a 5-4 majority vote reversing the decisions of both the District and Appellate Courts.

The District and Second Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the New Haven

“Civil Service Board was acting to fulfill its obligation under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]”

by protecting the black firefighters from discriminatory practices (Wikipedia, 2010). Conversely,

the Supreme Court found that there was not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the City

of New Haven would have been liable for disparate impact (unintentional discrimination) by not

discarding the test results (Frank Ricci v. John DeStefano, 2009). Furthermore, the Supreme

Court held that throwing out the employment exams was in fact “race-conscious” conduct, and

therefore was a direct violation of Title VII. Consequently, the Court concluded that the City of
 2

New Haven was guilty of reverse discrimination against the white firefighters in its attempt to

protect itself from a discrimination suit from the minority firefighters.

The ruling in this case has left several employers upset and confused about what limitations are

placed on their ability to prevent both intentional and unintentional discrimination in hiring

practices. Several people feel that the Supreme Court Justices were incorrect in their

interpretation of the City of New Haven’s actions and feel that the city officials would have

certainly been in violation of Title VII against the minorities had they not discarded the test

results. The four dissenters Justices Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens, and Breyer held that the primary

issue in the case was that the test was unfair. Further backlash came from individuals such as

lawyer David Rosen who felt that the ruling “changed the rules” (Scheffey, 2009). When

speaking of the Supreme Court’s demand that employers now show strong basis of evidence,

Rosen says, “…It’s setting the bar right up at the ceiling” (Scheffey, 2009). Those opposed to

the ruling make strong arguments as to why the Supreme Court should have gone the other way;

however, here I will identify reasons for which the Supreme Court ruling was correct in finding

the City of New Haven guilty of discriminatory practices.

One of the most important protections we have as employees is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Passed during the height of the civil rights movement, the Civil Rights Act was implemented so

that employers do not favor or discriminate against employees based on “…race, creed, or

gender” (Scheffey, 2009). The Act’s 1991 amendment which codifies “two primary theories

(disparate impact and disparate treatment) under which a plaintiff may prove a case of unlawful

employment discrimination” helps to identify the events in which an employer may or may not

be acting in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Title VII states that …

“…it shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer …(2) to limit, segregate, or classify

his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive
 3

any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an

employee because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sec, or national origin” ( Title VII,

2010).

New Haven city officials admitted that changes made to the hiring process were derived from a

“race-based” decision making process. The officials claimed that they were protecting minority

fire fighters from being adversely affected by the impact of the tests because their scores were

greatly disproportionate to the average of others. Although the officials claimed their intention

was to protect minority fire fighters, the fact remained that race was a factor in their decision to

discard the tests; therefore, the actions of the City were unlawful according to the Civil Rights

Act. Whether the factor of race was used with “good will” or malicious intent is irrelevant. The

use of race for any reason violates Title VII’s provision “…that the workplace be an environment

free of discrimination”, and in turn creates an environment where unfair advantages are given to

certain individuals.

Another Title VII provision worthy of mention is the provision which addresses “discriminatory

use of test scores”. This provision states that it is an unlawful employment practice for an

employer “ …in connection with the selection or referral of applicants or candidates for

employment or promotion, to adjust the scores of, use different cut off scores for, or otherwise

alter the result of, employment tests on the basis or race…” Although New Haven officials did

not alter the results or change the cut off scores to these exams, they did alter the standard

promotion procedure in order to change the demographics of applicants eligible for the captain

and lieutenant positions. This action, although not directly stated in Title VII can be aligned

closely with a discriminatory use of test scores.

Identifying and appropriately resolving cases like Ricci v. DeStefano is very important to

maintaining fair treatment within our workplaces. The Civil Rights Act was developed to deter
 4

exactly these kinds of situations and should be enforced according to the principle in which it

was written, to protect both minority and non-minority employees. A statement from the U.S.

Supreme Court regarding employment test reads, “Employment tests can be an important part of

a neutral selection system that safeguards against the very racial animosities Title VII was

intended to prevent” (Frank Ricci v. John DeStefano, 2009). If the legal system allowed such

actions to take place, the results could open Pandora’s Box and signal employers to change

hiring practices as they see fit. Without enforced civil protection, employers across the country

would have free will to bend hiring practices for more favorable results.

Title VII’s theory of disparate treatment, is described as an event in which a “claim exist where

an employer treats some individuals less favorably than others because of their race, color,

religion, sex, or national origin” (Twomey, 2010). The controversial issue concerning disparate

treatment is based on “…whether the employer’s actions were motivated by discriminatory

intent, which may be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence” (“HR Guide, 2010). To

prove this, the plaintiff must either provide direct evidence that race was a motivating factor, or

“…prove discriminatory intent indirectly by inference” through establishment of a prima facie

case ( HR Guide, 2009). In Ricci, the latter was applied, and the City of New Haven had the

burden of proving through evidence “… legitimate, non-discriminatory reason[s] for its actions”

(“HR Guide”, 2010).

According to the 1991 Amendment to the Civil Rights Act, an employer may be exempt from

disparate treatment if that employer can justify an action by proving the act was done out of

business necessity. In an attempt to defend their actions, City of New Haven officials used

business necessity as a defense for discarding the current promotion assessment. It was then up

to the respondent to prove through “demonstrable evidence” such as “…evidence of statistical

reports, validation studies, expert testimony, etc.” that the fire fighter assessments were not of
 5

significant job relation to the captain and lieutenant positions in which the men were applying for

(Scheffey, 2009).

The respondent argued that as the test were developed, the validation studies used to measure the

effectiveness of the exam failed to confirm its validity. Therefore, according to the City, the

validation studies could not appropriately measure the fairness of the assessment. Unfortunately

for them, this argument contradicted the testimonies submitted by test developer, IOS. The case

states that a representative from IOS described the developmental process as a “painstaking

analyses of the questions asked to assure their relevance to the captain and lieutenant positions”

(Frank Ricci v. John DeStefano, 2009). The testimony also detailed the extensive amount of on-

the-job observation and analytical effort (such as over representing minorities) used to avoid any

race-based discrepancies in results. Considering these efforts and other research put into the

development of these test, the City’s argument that the test were not valid is not very plausible.

Therefore, as the circumstantial evidence procedure holds, the plaintiff was able to prove that

“…the employer’s stated reason is a pretext to hide discrimination” and the defense of the City

shattered (“HR Guide”, 2009).

Ricci v. DeStefano is a case about an employer that tried to provide business justification for
acting to prevent disparate impact on minorities which resulted in disparate treatment on non-
minorities. Unfortunately, this action resulted in a breach of civil rights for the non-minority
applicants. Despite their argued intention, the City of New Haven was at fault for violating a
group of employee’s civil rights and for failing to take the necessary precautions to avoid such
circumstances by thoroughly testing the hiring practice. For these reasons, it is my opinion that
the United States Supreme Court, ruled appropriately in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano.
 6

References

Civil Rights Act of 1991 (2010). http://finduslaw.com/civil_rights_act_of_1991_pub_l_102_166

Frank Ricci v. John DeStefano No. 07 1428 and 08-328 (2009, June 29).
HR Guide to Internet: EEPC Disparate Treatment (2010). Website: http://www.hr-
guide.com/data/G701.htm
Ricci v. DeStefano (2009). Retrieved September 11, 2010 from Cornell University Law School
website: http://topics.law.cornell.edu
Scheffley, T (2009, July 6). Firefighter Case Leaves ‘Gray Areas’. Connecticut Law Tribune.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (2010) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Website: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
Twomey, D. (2010). Labor & Employment Law. Mason Ohio: South- Western Cengage
Learning.
Wikipedia: Ricci v. DeStefano (2010). Retrieved September 11, 2010 from Wikepedia website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ricci_destefano