Ricci v. DeStefano

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2009 United States Supreme Court case

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .

Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department ,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic , passed the test for promotion to a management position, yet the city declined to promote them because none of the black firefighters who took the same test scored high enough to be considered for promotion. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of a certain racial group (blacks) from promotion under a disparate impact cause of action.[2] [3] The twenty non-black firefighters claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .

The Supreme Court held 5–4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII because the city did not have a "strong basis in evidence" that it would have subjected itself to disparate impact liability if it had promoted the white and Hispanic firefighters instead of the black firefighters. Because the plaintiffs won under their Title VII claim, the Court did not consider the plaintiffs' argument that New Haven violated the constitutional right to equal protection.

Facts

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricci_v._DeStefano&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Facts")
]

In late 2003, the New Haven Fire Department had seven openings for captain and eight openings for lieutenant . To fill the open positions, it needed to administer civil service examinations. The examinations consisted of two parts: a written examination and an oral examination.

The examinations were governed in part by the City of New Haven's contract with the firefighters' union (which stated that the written exam result counted for 60% of an applicant's score and the oral exam for 40%, and that a total score above 70% on the exam would constitute a passing score). The final selection would be governed by a provision in the City Charter referred to as the "Rule of Three", which mandated that a civil service position be filled from among the three individuals with the highest scores on the exam.

Examinations

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricci_v._DeStefano&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Examinations")
]

The New Haven Department of Human Resources issued an RFP for these examinations, as a result of which I/O Solutions ("IOS") designed the examinations.[4] The examinations were administered in November and December 2003;[5] 118 firefighters took the examinations (77 took the lieutenant exam and 41 took the captain exam).

When the results came back, the pass rate for black candidates was approximately half that of the corresponding rate for white candidates:[6]

• The pass rate for the captain exam was: 16 (64%) of the 25 whites; 3 (38%) of the 8 blacks; and 3 (38%) of the 8 Hispanics.[7] Under the city charter's "Rule of Three", the top 9 scorers would be eligible for promotion to the 7 open captain positions. The top 9 scorers consisted of 7 whites, 2 Hispanics, and no blacks.
• The pass rate for the lieutenant exam was: 25 (58%) of the 43 whites; 6 (32%) of the 19 blacks; 3 (20%) of the 15 Hispanics. Under the city charter's "Rule of Three", the top 10 scorers would be eligible for promotion to the 8 open lieutenant positions. The top 10 scorers were all white.

Parties

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricci_v._DeStefano&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Parties")
]

Ricci and eighteen other white test takers, plus one Hispanic, all of whom would have qualified for consideration for the promotions, sued the city including Mayor John DeStefano Jr. The lead plaintiff was Frank Ricci, a decorated firefighter who had served at the New Haven station for 11 years. Ricci gave up a second job to make time to study for the test. Because he has dyslexia , he paid an acquaintance $1,000 to read his textbooks onto audiotapes. Ricci also made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group, and participated in mock interviews. He placed 6th among 77 people who took the lieutenant's test;[8] thus, under the "Rule of Three", Ricci would have been eligible for promotion.

Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case.[9] [10]

In addition to Ricci and Vargas, other firefighters were equally involved and were named plaintiffs: Steven Durand, Greg Boivin, Mark Vendetto, John Vendetto, Kevin Roxbee, James Kottage, Matthew Marcarelli, Edward Riordan, Sean Patten, Brian Jooss, Michael Christoforo, Timothy Scanlon, Ryan DiVito, Christopher Parker, Michael Blatchley, William Gambardella, Thomas Michaels, and Gary Carbone. The press dubbed the group the 'New Haven 20.'

Claims

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricci_v._DeStefano&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Claims")
]

Among other things, the suit alleged that, by discarding the test results, the City and the named officials discriminated against the plaintiffs based on their race, in violation of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution . The City and the officials defended their actions, arguing that if they had certified the results, they could have faced liability under Title VII for adopting a practice that had a disparate impact on the minority firefighters.

Judgment

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricci_v._DeStefano&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Judgment")
]

District Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricci_v._DeStefano&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: District Court")
]

Judge Janet Bond Arterton in the federal district court ruled for the city, granting its motion for summary judgment .[11]

Second Circuit

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricci_v._DeStefano&action=edit&section=7 "Edit section: Second Circuit")
]

On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Pooler , Sack and Sotomayor , C.JJ.) heard arguments in this case of discrimination .[12] Judge Sotomayor (who was subsequently elevated to Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court) vigorously questioned the attorneys in the case, and repeatedly discussed whether the city had a right to attempt to reformulate its test if it was afraid that the original test was discriminatory or that it would result in litigation.[12] The three-judge panel affirmed the district court's ruling in a summary order , without opinion, on February 15, 2008.[13]

After a judge on the Second Circuit requested that the court hear the case _en banc _, however, the panel withdrew its summary order. On June 9, 2008 it issued instead a unanimous per curiam opinion.[14] The panel's June 9, 2008 per curiam opinion was eight sentences long. It characterized the trial court's decision as "thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned" while also lamenting that there were "no good alternatives" in the case. The panel expressed sympathy with the plaintiffs' situation, particularly Ricci's, but ultimately concluded that the Civil Service Board was acting to "fulfill its obligations under Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]." The panel concluded by adopting the trial court's opinion in its entirety.[[14]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v.

…