Supreme Court Creates New Defense to Adverse Impact Discrimination Claims

Updated: July 02, 2009

On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued its 5 to 4 decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, holding that white firefighters had been subjected to intentional discrimination when New Haven refused to certify the results of a test because they disproportionately favored white firefighters to the detriment of black firefighters. Importantly, the Court's decision is based on an interpretation of Title VII, NOT on Constitutional grounds, and thus has applicability to every employer covered by Title VII.

The test in question consisted of 100 written questions, which accounted for 60% of a candidate's score, and an oral exam consisting of hypothetical questions, which counted for 40%. The exam was developed after intensive job analysis by outside experts, which included oversampling of minority firefighters to combat discrimination. Outside fire officers were brought in to score the oral portion, and each oral panel consisted of one white, and two minority, examiners. Nevertheless, whites passed the exam in significantly disproportionate numbers to African Americans and Hispanics. The results meant that virtually all available promotions would go to white firefighters. After public debate, and hearing from various experts, the Civil Service Board refused to certify the test results on a divided vote. The asserted justification of the City was fear of disparate impact lawsuits over the exam by minority firefighters.

The trial court and the Court of Appeals (in a panel including Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor) ruled that the fear of disparate impact litigation was sufficient to take the racially-based action to throw out the test. But the Supreme Court majority disagreed. In reaching its ruling, the Supreme Court held that where employers are confronted with a selection process that causes numerical adverse impact, they may only invalidate that selection process if there is "a strong basis in evidence" that the selection process will itself be judged a violation of Title VII's prohibition against selection procedures which create disparate impact. Significantly, the Court found that the City's "fear of litigation" because the test had an admitted disparate impact against minorities was NOT a "strong basis in evidence" for the City to junk the test. Instead, the Court said that the factors determining whether a strong basis in the evidence existed centered around: 1) whether the test was job related and consistent with business necessity; and 2) whether there was evidence of a lesser discriminatory alternative. While the City did not have to show that it would lose a disparate impact case, the Court said that in order to throw out an already administered selection procedure, the city had to show strong evidence that an adverse impact plaintiff could show that the test or selection criteria the City used likely violated one of these two factors.

In applying the test here, the Court found for the white firefighters because "no reasonable jury" could find that the City had produced the strong basis in evidence that showed that its use of the test was a violation of the disparate impact prohibitions of Title VII. The Court reached this ruling relying in large measure on the detailed process, lead by outside experts, by which the City developed the test.

Justice Ginsburg's lengthy dissent from the decision, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Breyer not only concluded that the test used by the Court was wrong but also found that there was the requisite strong evidence, that the test was not business related and that there were other less discriminatory alternatives to determine whom to promote. Showing how split this Court is, the dissent concluded, from the same evidence relied on by the majority, that no reasonable jury could conclude anything other than that strong evidence existed that supported the City's conclusion that it would lose a disparate impact case.

This decision will have a major impact on an array of employer decision-making. For example, employers who administer professionally developed tests and other selection procedures can now take substantial comfort in enforcing results of these procedures, even in the face of disparate results. Similarly, employers who audit their pay practices and insure they are professionally constructed and based on appropriate criteria also can take similar guidance from this case, something that is of substantial importance in light of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Indeed, although not directly addressed in this case, the logical result of this Supreme Court decision seems to suggest that the Court has created a new defense in adverse impact cases. Specifically, the absence of a strong showing that an employer would lose an adverse impact case along with a fear of being sued for reverse intentional discrimination would now seem to be sufficient to defend against any subsequent adverse impact case brought by minority group members disappointed with the results of an appropriately constructed pay or selection process.

Want more information?

Instant Impact webinar with Reed Seminars Tuesday, July 7th at 3:30 p.m. EDT, 2:30 p.m. CDT on "What Ricci v. DeStefano Means for Labor & Employment Lawyers, Their Clients & Workplace Discrimination Issues." If you are interested in attending, you can use the discout code authorspecial to receive 20% off registration. If you cannot call-in from your office or mobile phone to attend the seminar and view the presentation, Reed Seminars will email you the PowerPoint and audio files later that day for viewing on your computer at your convenience (you simply need to register before the seminar occurs). To register, please call 415-331-1122 or visit http://reedseminars.com/details.asp?id=370

Featured Research
  • Best ERP Features and Benefits for Your Business

    Are you considering investing in ERP software for the first time? Or maybe you already have an ERP solution but you’re worried it’s becoming dated. If either of the above apply to you, read our latest guide on the top ERP features and benefits based on the size of your business. You may be surprised at how versatile and cost-effective it is becoming - regardless of if you own a small business or run a large enterprise. more

  • 9 Spooky Signs You Need a Contact Center Upgrade

    When was the last time you evaluated the performance of your current contact center and the software you are using? The results may be frightening! If it’s been awhile since you invested in contact center software, there is a good chance that your needs have changed or that there are better options available now. Fortunately, it’s relatively easy to determine if you need an upgrade or not. more

  • 7 Ways the Wrong Phone System Can Haunt Your Business

    The wrong phone system could be haunting your business - and we’re talking about problems more serious than ghosts and ghouls. From increased costs to issues with scaling, we’ve identified seven important ways that a less than ideal phone system could be holding you back. You’ll be surprised at how much of a difference this can make to your bottom line too. more

  • Ditch Your Fax Servers

    An in-house fax server gives an IT department centralized management and monitoring over the entire enterprise's faxing. This can help your company track usage and better maintain records for auditing and record keeping. However, there are serious drawbacks that come with utilizing an in-house fax server solution and these range from security to cost-prohibitive pricing. more

  • The IT Manager's Survival Guide

    As an IT manager, maintaining physical fax servers and infrastructure is not a high priority. However, fax capability remains a business need simply because chances are your industry is dependent on its security. What if there was a way to reduce the amount of time spent handling fax complaints and maintaining physical servers? And this way took into account security, cost savings, and freed up your IT resources. Would you be interested? more