Premium
Damned If You Do and Damned If You Don’t: Title VII and Public Employee Promotion Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Litigation
Author(s) -
Roberts Robert N.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
public administration review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.721
H-Index - 139
eISSN - 1540-6210
pISSN - 0033-3352
DOI - 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02179.x
Subject(s) - disparate impact , supreme court , disparate treatment , promotion (chess) , employment discrimination , circumstantial evidence , political science , law , liability , discretion , legislative history , business , public relations , plaintiff , politics
What has been the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Ricci v. Destefano on the selection and promotion practices of public employers?; Relying solely on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court held that the Civil Service Board of New Haven, Connecticut, had engaged in Title VII disparate treatment discrimination by refusing to certify the results of a promotion examination that led, in turn, to a disparate impact on African American firefighters. To limit the discretion of public employers to disregard such selection and promotion exam results, the Ricci majority held that a public employer must “have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate‐impact liability if it fails to the take the race‐conscious discriminatory action.” This article argues that the decision effectively prohibits public employers from rejecting the results of selection and promotion instruments, even though there is evidence that screening instruments inequitably affect protected groups. It also forces public employers to become more careful in developing selection and promotion examinations or face the possibility of costly Title VII litigation.