Employers Beware: Reverse Discrimination Is Still Discrimination
(July 2009) By Melissa E. Goldmeier, Summer Associate.
For more information, contact Paul Farquharson.
The Supreme Court of the United States recently addressed the
complex and controversial issue of reverse employment discrimination. In Ricci v. DeStefano,
the Supreme Court sought to answer whether municipalities could
decline to use an exam that would make a disproportionate amount of white
applicants eligible for promotion because of fears of charges of employment
discrimination on the basis of race.
In 2003, the New Haven, Connecticut, fire department
contracted with Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc., to develop exams to
be used to assess whether the fire department employees could be eligible for a
promotion. These exams, which were required by the fire department’s union
contract, were given to applicants seeking to fill captain and lieutenant
positions. Under city regulation, the fire department was to promote the three
highest scoring applicants among various groups who took the tests.

Following the test and upon reviewing its results, fire
department officials discovered that adhering to this city regulation would not
allow any black fire fighters to be promoted. In fact, the passage rate for
black applicants on the exam required for lieutenant promotion was about half of
that for white applicants. The City responded to the disparity in test scores by
engaging in a comprehensive review of the test to determine whether it was
racially biased. Despite evidence that it was not, the City, admittedly prompted
by a fear of racial discrimination lawsuits, decided not to allow the test
results to stand.
As a result, a group of seventeen white firefighters, among
whom included Ricci and one Hispanic, who scored the highest test results,
brought suit against the City, claiming that the City’s refusal to acknowledge
their high scores violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII.
Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that because the city denied their promotions,
the city violated Title VII’s disparate impact provision. In pertinent part,
this rule provides that, even in the absence of discriminatory intent, an
employer may not engage in a facially neutral employment procedure that has an
adverse effect on members of a protected class. The District Court granted the
City’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed.
Ricci and his colleagues filed a Petition of Certiorari,
arguing that the lower courts erred in their conclusions. In their briefs and at
oral argument before the Supreme Court, Plaintiffs argued that denying white
firefighters promotions solely because they were white amounted to race-based
discrimination in violation of both Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause.
This, they contended, was not at all dissimilar to denying black workers
promotions simply because of their skin color. As such, they asked the Court to
review the decision under strict scrutiny.
In evaluating the merits of the case, the Court,
interpreting Title VII, concluded that the City failed to present sufficient
evidence that the test was flawed or biased in favor of white test-takers.
Further, the Court noted, that although the varying test results created a prima
facie case of a disparate impact employment discrimination claim, the City’s
investigation into the make-up and administration of the test revealed that the
test was not biased in favor of white-workers. Therefore, the city had no basis
for refusing to promote the highest test scorers, all of whom happened to be
white.
In Ricci, the Supreme Court refused to allow fear of
discrimination-based litigation justify an employer’s refusal to promote white
employees. In so doing, the Court demonstrated the difficulty employers face
when trying to interpret and adhere to Title VII. By applying Title VII rather
than the Equal Protection Clause, the Supreme Court made their ruling applicable
to employers in both the private and public sector. Under Ricci, all employers
who seek to avoid discrimination litigation are advised to consider how their
actions may give rise to reverse discrimination charges.