Ricci v. DeStefano

February 25, 2009 • Legal Briefs

In Ricci v. DeStefano, the City of New Haven, Connecticut developed an exam for firefighters seeking promotion to command positions. The City went out of its way to ensure that the exam was race‐​neutral and tested only relevant skills and abilities. When the exam results came down, however, white candidates had done better than their African‐​American and Hispanic peers. Given the few command positions available and the City’s rule that the highest scorers on an exam be promoted first, few minority firefighters would thus have been eligible for promotion. After a series of meetings and political machinations, the City refused to certify the results of the exam and promote anyone. Several of the firefighters who would have been eligible for promotion filed a lawsuit, claiming racial discrimination under Title VII. The district court, affirmed by the court of appeals, granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the City’s alleged fear of an adverse impact claim (a different type of racial discrimination claim under Title VII) — based merely on the fact that the exam results yielded a racial disparity — was a legitimate reason for its decision not to certify the exams. Cato’s brief, joined by Reason Foundation and the Individual Rights Foundation, points out the absurd incentives at play: if the lower court’s ruling stands, employers will throw out the results of exams (or other criteria) that produce racial disparity, even if those exams are race‐​neutral, entirely valid, and extremely important to the employer and (as in this case) the public.

Media Name: ricci_vs_destefano.jpg
About the Author
Ilya Shapiro

Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute