|
|
|
  Ricci v. DeStefano (U.S. 2009)
Ogletree Deakins - August 13, 2009 On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 ruling, that the City of New Haven's decision to discard test results that were used to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that the City's race-based rejection of the test results cannot satisfy the "strong-basis-in-evidence standard," which the Court adopted to resolve conflicts between Title VII's disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions. According to the Court, "[f]ear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."  Court Limits Employer Options For Avoiding Bias Claims (pdf).Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - August 10, 2009 A central focus of Supreme Court nominee
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing
is her decision in a controversial reverse
discrimination case brought by white firefighters
in Connecticut. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the white firefighters, whereas
Judge Sotomayor was part of a 3 judge
panel which rejected that claim. Here’s what
happened and why you should be concerned. A HOBSON’S CHOICE: HIGH COURT SHARPLY LIMITS EMPLOYERS’ OPTIONS FOR AVOIDING BIAS CLAIMS.Ballard Rosenberg Golper & Savitt - July 17, 2009 When a group of White firefighters came out on top in a promotional exam, a Connecticut Fire Department became worried about possible racial bias in the exam. 'RICCI' AND A HARD PLACE.Shaw Valenza LLP - July 13, 2009 When is it lawful under anti-discrimination laws for an employer to intentionally discriminate against members of one protected class, to avoid a disparate impact claim by individuals in another protected group? The U.S. Supreme Court addressed that question in Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009 DJDAR 9567 (June 29, 2009). The court's decision explains the interplay between two branches of anti-discrimination laws: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Ricci v. DeSteffano: Talk about A Rock And A Hard Place: Employers Required To Pick Between Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Claims.Littler Mendelson, P.C. - July 13, 2009 On June 29, 2009, Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, issued the long-awaited decision in Ricci v. DeSteffano, a "reverse race discrimination" case arising out of the City of New Haven, Connecticut's Civil Service Board's ("CSB") decision not to use the results of promotional examinations. The Court held that CSB engaged in disparate treatment race discrimination against white firefighters when it decided not to certify test results showing a disparate impact on certain firefighters of color.1 In making its decision, the CSB considered evidence that the selection process may not have been job-related and consistent with business necessity and that an alternative employment practice having less of a disparate impact and serving its legitimate business needs could have been utilized. Ruling in New Haven Firefighters Case Resolves Potential Conflicts Between Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Claims and Presents New Challenges for Employers.Baker Hostetler LLP - July 02, 2009 On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Ricci, et al. v. Destefano, et al., also known as the New Haven firefighters “reverse” discrimination case. The case is significant because it establishes that an employer may not manipulate the results of legitimate, job-related promotional examinations to obtain a more diverse workforce absent a showing that there is a strong basis in evidence to believe the employer will be subject to disparate impact liability if it fails to take the race conscious discriminatory action. The case breaks new ground by resolving potential conflicts between disparate treatment and disparate impact claims, and presents new challenges for employers faced with potential litigation arising from testing requirements or other facially-neutral employment practices. Supreme Court Rules for White Firefighters in Bias Claim.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 01, 2009 In a much-awaited decision issued on its last day in session, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the City of New Haven improperly discriminated on the basis of race when it refused to certify the results of a promotional test on which white and Hispanic firefighters outperformed their black colleagues. Ricci v. DeStefano, Nos. 07-1428 & 08-328 (June 29, 2009). A 5-4 majority of the Court rejected the City’s argument that it disregarded the test results to avoid violating Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions. Out of the Frying Pan and into the Fire: Supreme Court Issues Favorable Ruling forWhite Firefighters in Reverse Discrimination Case.Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC - July 01, 2009 Query: May an employer make a race-based employment decision when it discovers that one of its employment tests or policies has the unintended effect of creating an adverse impact on another racial classification? Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Firefighters In Reverse Discrimination Case.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - June 30, 2009 In one of the most important employment law cases of the decade, the U.S. Supreme Court handed employees a 5-4 victory by recognizing that even good-faith employment decisions can sometimes lead to results that give rise to lawsuits if those results fall more harshly on one class of employees than on another. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Firefighters in High-Profile Discrimination Case, Sets New Standard for Evaluating Disparate Treatment Versus Disparate Impact.Ford & Harrison LLP - June 30, 2009 Today the Supreme Court resolved an inherent tension between Title VII's disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions, holding that the mere desire to avoid liability under Title VII's disparate impact provision does not automatically justify a conscious decision to violate the statute's disparate treatment provision. See Ricci v. DeStefano (June 29, 2009). Title VII's disparate treatment provision prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of a protected category, while the disparate impact provision prohibits certain practices that are not intended to discriminate but, in fact, have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities. Recognizing the difficulty employers may face in balancing these competing interests, the Court adopted a "strong basis in evidence" test to be used in such situations. Under this standard, employers must demonstrate that a strong basis in evidence exists that their actions might violate Title VII's disparate impact provisions before employers can make race-based decisions. Supreme Court Issues Ruling In Firefighter “Reverse” Discrimination Case.Ogletree Deakins - June 30, 2009 On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that the City of New Haven’s action in discarding test results that were used to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, ruled that the City’s race-based rejection of the test results cannot satisfy the strong-basis-in-evidence standard, which the Court adopted to resolve any conflict between Title VII’s disparate treatment and disparate impact provisions. According to the Court, “[f]ear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”
|
Employment Law Seminars
Employment Law 101 for HR Professionals
Las Vegas
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplyNewport Beach
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Francisco
March 23, 2010 Fisher & Phillips2010 Public Sexual Harassment Training for supervisors and managers.Glendale
March 23, 2010 Ballard Rosenberg2010 Employment Law UpdateSan Jose
March 23, 2010 LittlerHow to Prepare a Response to a DFEH/EEOC ChargeWebinar
March 23, 2010 Shaw ValenzaTOP 10 TIPS FOR CREATING A BLOGGING, SOCIAL MEDIA AND CELL PHONE POLICYOnline
March 23, 2010 HR Learning Center LLCNegotiating Your Business to the TopOrlando
March 23, 2010 Ford & HarrisonCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Diego
March 24, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsEmployment Law Breakfast Briefings`Kenner
March 24, 2010 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2010 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds