Ricci v. DeStefano facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Ricci v. DeStefano |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 22, 2009 Decided June 29, 2009 |
|
| Full case name | Frank Ricci, et al. v. John DeStefano, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 07-1428 08-328 |
| Citations | 557 U.S. 557 (more)
129 S. Ct. 2658; 174 L. Ed. 2d 490
|
| Prior history | Summary judgment for defendants, 554 F. Supp. 2d 142 (D. Conn. 2006), aff'd, 264 F. App'x 106 (2d Cir. 2008), summary order withdrawn, aff'd, 530 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2008), rehearing en banc denied, 530 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008), cert. granted, 555 U.S. 1091 (2009). |
| Holding | |
| Before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional, disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe that it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action. Because New Haven failed to demonstrate such strong basis in evidence, its action in discarding the tests violated Title VII. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito |
| Concurrence | Scalia |
| Concurrence | Alito, joined by Scalia, Thomas |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Souter, Breyer |
| Laws applied | |
| Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. | |
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), was a labor law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It dealt with rules against unfair treatment in jobs, especially when a company's actions accidentally affect one group more than another. This is called "disparate impact" and is covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case was about twenty firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut. Nineteen were white and one was Hispanic. They all passed a test to become managers. However, the city decided not to promote them. This was because no black firefighters who took the same test scored high enough to be considered.
New Haven officials canceled the test results. They worried they would be sued for unfairness because the test seemed to exclude black firefighters. The twenty non-black firefighters then sued the city. They said the city had discriminated against them, breaking Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court decided 5-4 that New Haven's choice to ignore the test results was against Title VII. The city did not have enough proof that it would have been sued if it had promoted the white and Hispanic firefighters. Because the firefighters won their case based on Title VII, the Court did not need to decide if New Haven also violated their constitutional right to equal protection.
Contents
Facts of the Case
In late 2003, the New Haven Fire Department needed to fill seven captain and eight lieutenant positions. To do this, they gave civil service exams. These exams had two parts: a written test and an oral test.
The rules for the exams came from a contract between New Haven and the firefighters' union. The written test counted for 60% of a person's score, and the oral test for 40%. A total score above 70% was considered passing. The city also had a "Rule of Three." This rule meant that a job had to be filled from the top three highest-scoring people on the exam.
The Examinations
A company called I/O Solutions (IOS) created the exams. Firefighters took the tests in November and December 2003. A total of 118 firefighters took the exams.
When the results came back, fewer black candidates passed compared to white candidates.
- For the captain exam: 16 out of 25 white firefighters (64%) passed. 3 out of 8 black firefighters (38%) passed. 3 out of 8 Hispanic firefighters (38%) passed. The "Rule of Three" meant the top 9 scorers could be promoted. These 9 were 7 white firefighters and 2 Hispanic firefighters. No black firefighters were in the top 9.
- For the lieutenant exam: 25 out of 43 white firefighters (58%) passed. 6 out of 19 black firefighters (32%) passed. 3 out of 15 Hispanic firefighters (20%) passed. The "Rule of Three" meant the top 10 scorers could be promoted. All 10 were white firefighters.
The Firefighters Who Sued
Frank Ricci and eighteen other white firefighters, plus one Hispanic firefighter, sued the city. They would have been considered for promotions if the test results were used. Frank Ricci was the main person in the lawsuit. He was a highly respected firefighter who had worked for 11 years. He studied very hard for the test, even paying someone to read his textbooks onto audiotapes because he has dyslexia. He scored 6th out of 77 people on the lieutenant's test. This meant he would have been eligible for promotion.
Lt. Ben Vargas, the Hispanic firefighter in the group, faced harsh criticism. He reported being attacked after talking about the case. He later left the Hispanic firefighters' association because they did not support his lawsuit.
Other firefighters involved in the lawsuit included Steven Durand, Greg Boivin, and many others. The news media called the group the 'New Haven 20.'
Why They Sued
The lawsuit claimed that by throwing out the test results, the city treated the firefighters unfairly because of their race. This, they said, broke Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The city and its officials argued that if they had used the test results, they might have been sued for having a test that unfairly affected minority firefighters.
Court Decisions
District Court Ruling
The first court to hear the case was the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Judge Janet Bond Arterton ruled in favor of the city.
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
The firefighters then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A panel of three judges, including Judge Sonia Sotomayor (who later became a Supreme Court Justice), heard the case. The judges wondered if the city had the right to change its test if it feared the original test was unfair. The panel first agreed with the lower court without much explanation.
Later, after another judge asked for a larger group of judges to hear the case, the panel changed its decision. They issued a short, unanimous opinion. They called the first court's decision "thorough" and "well-reasoned." They also said there were "no good alternatives" in the case. The panel felt bad for the firefighters, especially Ricci, but decided the city was trying to follow its duties under Title VII.
A request for a full court rehearing was denied. Two judges wrote that the Supreme Court should review the case. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on April 22, 2009.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court decided that the city of New Haven broke Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by throwing out the test scores. The Court said the city could not prove that the tests were not related to the job or that they were not needed for the business. The majority of the Court believed that an employer must have strong proof that they would be sued for unfair impact if they did not take a race-based action.
The Supreme Court agreed that the exams made by IOS were fair and valid. IOS is a company that creates tests for fire and police departments. The Court noted how IOS designed the tests carefully. They used interviews, observations, and independent experts. This process helped create a test that aimed to reduce unfair effects on different groups.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that IOS worked hard to make sure the tests were fair. He explained that IOS interviewed current captains and lieutenants. They also observed officers on duty to understand the job requirements.
Justice Kennedy also said that IOS made sure to include many minority firefighters in the test design process. This was to prevent the tests from favoring white candidates.
He explained how IOS developed the written exams. They used training manuals and department rules to create 100 multiple-choice questions. These questions were written at a reading level below 10th grade. The city gave firefighters a list of study materials for three months.
IOS also created oral exams to test job skills. They used made-up situations to check skills like leadership and problem-solving. Candidates answered these questions to a panel of three experts.
The Court agreed that IOS was careful in choosing these experts. All 30 experts were higher in rank than the positions being tested. They came from outside Connecticut. Most of the experts were minorities, and each panel had two minority members. They were trained to score answers consistently.
Justice Kennedy explained that the city's decision to cancel the test results was "express, race-based decisionmaking." This means they made a choice based on race. He said that employers cannot cancel test results just because of racial differences in scores. Doing so would be like favoring one race over another, which Title VII does not allow.
He said that if an employer has a test that seems to have an unfair impact, they must have a "strong basis in evidence" to believe the test is truly flawed. The city of New Haven did not have this strong proof. The Court found that the exams were related to the job and needed for the business. Also, there was no strong proof that other, fairer tests were available.
Justice Kennedy concluded that the process of creating the tests was fair. Firefighters studied hard and had high hopes. But the city's decision to cancel the results was based only on the racial differences in scores. This caused a lot of harm to the firefighters who passed. The Court said that fear of a lawsuit alone cannot justify treating people differently based on race.
Concurring Opinion
Justice Scalia agreed with the Court's decision. He pointed out that Title VII's rules about "disparate impact" (when a policy accidentally affects one group more) can sometimes clash with the Constitution's rule of equal protection. He felt that Title VII sometimes makes employers focus on racial outcomes, which can lead to race-based decisions.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, disagreed. She believed New Haven was right to not promote the white firefighters. She thought the city's concern about being sued was valid.
Justice Ginsburg argued that the Court ignored problems with the tests New Haven used. She also said the Court did not consider that other cities used better tests with less unfair results. She noted that New Haven has a large minority population, but few minorities are in leadership roles in the fire department. She felt the Court's decision would make this problem worse.
She explained that the test results showed big differences based on race. For example, on the lieutenant exam, the passing rate for black candidates was about half that of white candidates. No black candidates would have been promoted to lieutenant. This was enough to show a possible case of "disparate impact" under Title VII.
Justice Ginsburg believed that the city's actions were not based on racial discrimination. She said that all test results were thrown out, and no one was promoted. Firefighters of all races would have to take another test. She argued that an employer trying to follow the law and ensure fairness should not be punished.
She also said that using "equal protection" rules to understand Title VII is not always helpful. The Equal Protection Clause only stops intentional discrimination. But Title VII aims to stop all kinds of job discrimination, even accidental. She believed that Title VII's rule about "disparate impact" helps increase minority participation in a fair way.
Justice Ginsburg concluded that the case was unfortunate. She felt New Haven could have avoided it by using a better test from the start. But she did not think the city's actions were race-based discrimination.
Significance of the Case
After the Supreme Court's decision, New Haven used the original test results. They promoted 14 of the 20 firefighters within a few months. The city also settled the lawsuit. They paid $2 million to the firefighters and gave them extra "service time" for their pensions. The firefighters' lawyer, Karen Lee Torre, received $3 million in fees.
Some people have criticized this case. They argue that the decision did not consider other ways to fix the problem. They also suggest the Court might have been looking for a case about racial discrimination, similar to other cases it had heard.
Images for kids
-
Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the Court's decision.
