Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Ricci v. DeStefano

Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIITitle VIIdisparate treatmentdisparate impactrace-based decisionmakingstrong basis in evidence

Facts

New Haven used written and oral exams developed by an outside consultant to determine firefighter promotions to lieutenant and captain. After the 2003 exam results showed that white candidates outperformed minority candidates, city officials and the Civil Service Board held hearings about whether certifying the results would expose the City to disparate-impact liability under Title VII. The City ultimately declined to certify the results, which prevented promotions of certain white and Hispanic firefighters who had scored highly. Those firefighters sued, alleging the City discarded the results because of race.

Issue

Whether an employer violates Title VII's disparate-treatment prohibition when it refuses to certify promotion exam results because of their racial distribution in order to avoid possible disparate-impact liability. More specifically, whether fear of disparate-impact liability justified New Haven's race-based decision to discard the exam results.

Rule

Race-based action by an employer to avoid disparate-impact liability is impermissible under Title VII unless the employer can demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute. A mere showing of statistical disparity is not enough; the employer must have strong evidence that the challenged practice was not job related and consistent with business necessity, or that an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative was available and the employer refused to adopt it.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The City of Columbus, Ohio used a professionally developed written-and-oral exam to rank candidates for promotion to police sergeant. After the results showed that white candidates significantly outperformed Black candidates, city officials discarded the results solely because they feared being sued over the racial disparity, even though no evidence suggested the exam was not job related or that an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative was available for that promotion cycle.

If the high-scoring candidates sue under Title VII, which is the strongest argument that the city violated the statute?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, refusing to use results because of their racial distribution is intentional, race-based decisionmaking and thus disparate treatment unless the employer had a strong basis in evidence that it would otherwise be liable for disparate impact. A mere good-faith fear or raw statistical disparity alone is insufficient.