Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ricci Assignment
Ricci Assignment
DeStefano
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
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
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
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
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
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
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”
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
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
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