Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)
**Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) Overview**
Ricci v. DeStefano is a pivotal Supreme Court case focusing on issues of racial discrimination and employment testing. It arose from a situation in 2003 when firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, took promotional exams designed to be non-discriminatory. The results revealed that no African American candidates and only one Latino candidate scored high enough for promotion, leading city officials to invalidate the test results, fearing potential discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This decision prompted seventeen white and one Latino candidate, including Frank Ricci, to sue the city, claiming their constitutional rights were violated by the invalidation of the tests.
On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that New Haven's actions constituted racial discrimination against the high-scoring firefighters. The Court stated that the city could not discard test results post-administration without strong evidence of bias or irrelevance to the positions. The ruling underscored that employers must proactively evaluate testing procedures for potential bias before implementation. Ultimately, the case highlighted the complexities of balancing equal treatment in employment practices with the need to address historical inequalities, impacting how employers approach testing for promotions and hiring in the future.
Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)
Case Information
Date:June 29, 2009
Citation: 557 U.S.557
Issue: Racial discrimination in employment
Significance:Ricci v. DeStefano established that the burden remains on employers to make sure tests to determine employee eligibility for employment or promotion do not discriminate against any group of candidates. Once a test is administered, an employer cannot invalidate the test because the results seem to favor a group of candidates.
Background
In 2003, more than one hundred firefighters in the City of New Haven, Connecticut, took exams to determine which of them were eligible to fill the eight lieutenant and seven captain positions that were vacant in the New Haven Fire Department. The exams were multiple-choice (fill in the bubble) and designed by a professional testing company specifically for New Haven’s use. The exams were supposed to be non-discriminatory. One exam was for captain, and another was for lieutenant.
When the results came back, it was determined that several African-American and Latino candidates had passed the exams. However, none of the twenty African Americans who took either the lieutenant or the captain exam had scored high enough to be considered for promotion. Only one of twenty-nine Latinos who took the exams had scored high enough to be considered for promotion.
When the results were examined, New Haven officials decided that the test could be construed as unintentionally discriminatory against non-white candidates for several reasons: some whites and Asian Americans fare better in general on multiple-choice tests than African Americans and some other races because of socio-economic reasons; a multiple-choice exam might not be the best way to determine if a candidate had the leadership ability needed to perform the jobs; some questions on the test seemed strange in that they presented situations that were different than those typically encountered in New Haven.
Following the review of the test, the officials in New Haven decided to invalidate the test results. They were concerned that promoting mostly white candidates would make the town subject to lawsuits from minority candidates. The basis for these potential suits would be based on Title VII, the 1964 civil rights law that made it illegal for employers to use tests that were unfairly discriminatory on the basis of race.
When the city invalidated the test results, the high-scoring candidates who were eligible for promotion—seventeen whites and one Latino—sued the city and Mayor John DeStefano. They claimed that invalidating the exams violated their constitutional rights under the "equal protection under the law" provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment and was also reverse discrimination. The candidates, including Frank Ricci, for whom the case was named, cited the effort they put into studying, including giving up second jobs and paying people to help them prepare them for the exams, noting that the decision to invalidate had inflicted personal consequences on the candidates who did score well on the test.
Prior to the Supreme Court agreeing to hear the case, two lower courts, including the federal district court and the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, had already considered the case. The district court sided with DeStefano and the other defendants while the circuit court declined to hear the case. Arguments in the matter were heard by the Supreme Court on April 22, 2009. A decision was rendered on June 29 that same year.
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court overturned the lower court rulings and sided with Ricci and his fellow firefighters. By a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled that New Haven’s action in throwing out the test after it was administered was an act of racial discrimination against the firefighters who earned the higher scores.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (1936 – ) wrote the majority opinion for the court, noting that the evidence provided showed the city rejected the test scores solely because most of the top-scoring candidates were white. He added that fear of being sued for discriminating against candidates of color was not sufficient grounds for discriminating against the white candidates by discarding their test scores based on their race. Allowing employers to do so, Kennedy’s opinion stated, would result in a "de facto quota system."
The opinion did allow for employers to consider the possibility that employment tests might be biased against a particular race, but noted that considerations of racial bias must be done during the test-design process, not after it is administered. In order for a test to be thrown out after the fact, the majority justices said, there would have to be very strong evidence that a test was not in fact relevant to the positions being filled or that a less-discriminatory test was available. In issuing the ruling, the court said that there was no evidence that these criteria were met in this case.
The dissenting justices noted, in part, that overall there is no indication that those who are best at taking tests are the most qualified for leadership positions and that there is a general history of discriminatory behavior among fire departments.
Impact
The decision raised issues for employers who use similar testing procedures for determining promotions and hiring. Kennedy noted in his opinion that in order to throw out test results after a test had been taken, the city would have needed to provide "a strong basis in evidence" that using the test results would have resulted in liability for unintentional discriminatory action against a minority group.
The decision did not change existing affirmative action or civil rights laws, including Title VII, or the liability of employers to avoid intentional or inadvertent discrimination based on race. The burden remains on employers to make sure that tests used to determine eligibility for employment or promotion are not biased and do not discriminate against any group of candidates. However, the decision affirms that it is the responsibility of the employer to review any tests before they are used to scrutinize them for potential adverse impact on any group by race, gender, etc., and replace or change the test, policy, or other means of determination prior to implementation or use.
The City of New Haven settled the Ricci vs. DeStefano suit by providing a total of $2 million to the affected firefighters and $3 million to pay their legal counsel. Fourteen of the twenty plaintiffs in the suit were ultimately promoted, and each firefighter who was promotable was also awarded three years of "service time" toward his or her pension benefits.
Bibliography
Chen, Michelle. "Supreme Court Keeps Firefighters’ Civil Rights Claim Alive." The Huffington Post, May 2011. Web. 30 June 2016.
Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Finds Bias Against White Firefighters." The New York Times, June 2009. Web. 30 June 2016.
"Ricci et al vs. DeStefano et al." United States Supreme Court, June 2009. Web. 30 June 2016.
"Ricci vs. DeStefano." Center for Individual Rights, June 2009. Web. 30 June 2016.
"Supreme Court Rules Connecticut Firefighters Unfairly Denied Promotions Because of Race." American Civil Liberties Union, June 2009. Web. 30 June 2016.
West-Faulcon, Kimberly. "Ricci vs. DeStefano: A Test On Race." The Los Angeles Times, April 2009. Web. 30 June 2016.