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

Yes

4 of 5

by John Talleos

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

If the case of Ricci Vs DeStefano were ruled different, it would have been a milestone in discrimination law and tipped the balance toward a lesser color blind society giving advantages to individuals based on race. Why? Because it would have defined discrimination on test results related to job performance, a clear departure from previous rulings and the law itself.

In the past discrimination meant not hiring someone because of race or ethnic background. Having made this illegal, employers created an end run of the law and administered tests that had a clear desperate impact on minorities. Desperate impact and its meaning is the central question of the case because tests could be used to exclude minority hiring and thus shield discriminatory intent.

In the dissenting opinion written by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, she cites Griggs vs Duke Power Plant, where promotion and hiring requirements were ruled in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In that case tests were administered that were not job related and had a desperate impact on minorities. The act was conceived to eliminate artificial barriers that excluded minority hiring, notwithstanding the intent of the employer. The tests administered by the power plant were not related to job performance and thus in violation of Title VII.

But the firefighter test given in New Haven was job related. In this, the argument then became other tests were available which in practice yielded results more favorable to minorities, such as actual hands on performance in a controlled environment or scoring written and oral portions different. The problem here is much weight was given to a witness who was part of a test company different then that of the one used by the city of New Haven, hardly an unbiased opinion before the court.

Since there is no intrinsic differences within the races in regards to a firefighters test, the dissenting judges had to distort the meaning and intent of the law in order to suit an outcome they preferred ie: it attempted to create law, not interpret it.

Regardless of law or which test was used, there is an aspect of the Ricci case that bears mentioning. Lets say the test was used as a devise to see which minority group would score better and take the same pool of 118 firefighters, what would be wrong with the contest? For one thing of that 118 only 27 would be black. It would be reasonable, even irrational to deny that the 27 black participants had a slim chance of making it to the top 13 just because there isn't enough of them taking the test. If the test were a contest of course, whites would do better because the contest was rigged numerically in their favor, any observer of the contest would see this going in and not be surprised at the outcome.

The debate is framed in the context of, whites passed - blacks failed, therefore something somewhere went wrong and Title VII ought to encompass a more broader interpretation and include outcome alone, even if a test were job related. This was a wrong course and thankfully more reasonable minds prevailed.

Learn more about this author, John Talleos.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.