When the dyslexic firefighter scored well enough on an exam to qualify for promotion to lieutenant, he probably never thought it would take six years.
Today, Frank Ricci is vindicated. He, along with 13 other firefighters, have been promoted.
A dozen white firefighters and one Hispanic in New Haven scored high enough on a promotions exam to qualify. No blacks scored high enough to qualify, and the city, fearing disparate impact lawsuits, tossed everyone’s results.
Ricci and the others filed suit, claiming equal protection violations. After a district court judge dismissed Ricci’s case, a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court affirmed the dismissal. Conservative judges on the court sought to have the case re-heard. Judge Jose Cabranes defined the issue this way:
“May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of that examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?”
The appeals court declined to hear the case by a vote of 7 to 6. Ricci petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, and the court heard the case. By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled New Haven had violated Ricci’s rights.
Earlier this month, the firefighters requested promotions, and on December 1, the Board of Fire Commissioners approved the promotions. (Source)
Ricci v. DeStefano sets the tone for future cases. Before employers decide to discriminate against one group to avoid disparate impact liability from another, they must have a “strong basis in evidence” to believe they would be liable. Score disparities alone don’t qualify as a “strong basis in evidence.” New Haven would be liable only if the promotions exam wasn’t job related, consistent with business necessity, or if there was an equally valid, less discriminatory test the city refused to use.
“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the City’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”
Comments on this entry are closed.