Did the Supreme Court rule correctly in the New Haven firefighters case?

Yes

3 of 5

by Kimberly Schiller

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

To determine whether the Supreme Court ruled correctly in the New Haven firefighters case, we need to ignore our emotional response to issues of racism, and look at the law as it currently stands. It is not the Supreme Court's job to create law, merely to interpret the laws that already exist. It's easy to think that if a promotional test was racially biased, then it is only fair to throw it out. But when you look closely at the particular situation at hand, it becomes clear that the Supreme Court did make the correct decision.

The basics of Ricci v. DeStefano are fairly clear cut. In 2003 the New Haven Connecticut Fire Department administered an exam to determine which firefighters would be eligible for promotions. Based on the scores, no African-American firefighters would be eligible. Once this was realized, the city held several days of hearings and decided to throw out the test results.

The white firefighters who were in line for promotion based on the test then filed suit for race discrimination themselves. The city stated that they threw out the test because the skewed results made them likely to be sued by minority firefighters under Title VII.

The majority opinion essentially stated that an employer must prove that they would have been sued for discrimination in order to legally throw out test results after the test has been taken and scored. It also elaborated that the racial discrimination in employment that is prohibited by Title VII must be intentional. The city of New Haven did not have basis to throw out the test because they couldn't prove that the test was biased, and certainly not that it was intentionally biased.

Unfortunately, the city of New Haven supposedly never picked apart the actual exam to determine whether it was unfair in some way, or whether it was just an odd coincidence that minority firefighters scored poorly. While the knee jerk reaction may be that it can't just be a coincidence, the city had a responsibility to prove that. They couldn't just assume it was unfair based on the results.

In addition, the exam was purchased from a company that produces employment exams. One would assume that a company that specializes in creating these exams would produce a non-biased exam as a matter of course, so that it's clients would not be sued, putting even more emphasis on the city to actively prove the test was biased. In fact, they presented nothing explaining how or why the exam was unfair.

While the Supreme Court made the correct ruling, the implications of this decision will be far reaching and difficult to navigate. The legal issues surrounding employment discrimination are already murky, and the decision in Ricci v. DeStefano muddies the waters more. One way to interpret the ruling suggests that an employer has to prove that an employment exam was intentionally discriminatory in order to throw it out after the fact.

So an employer may have to prove that it intentionally broke the law in order to disregard unfair results! Secondly, the strengthening of the interpretation of Title VII applying to intentional discrimination will probably make it harder for victims to win. They may now have to prove that a company instituted a policy or exam in order to exclude them, which is understandably difficult. In any legal issue, it can be tricky to prove intent.

Ultimately, this Supreme Court decision puts the onus on employers to ensure that their hiring and promotion policies and procedures are fair and legal before they are implemented. It may also cause some employers to move away from using written exams and towards demonstrated skill and performance to avoid these questions altogether. Based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, this ruling was correct, but will probably lead to a revisiting of the intent and letter of the law for years to come.

Learn more about this author, Kimberly Schiller.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.