I don't think that it's going to affect the interpretation of disparate impact
(both sides agreed that the minority firefighters passed the exams at a lower
rate than the whites).

Rather, it potentially set a lower standard for the defendants to counter
disparate impact. The majority of the supremes felt that the test was valid
enough and that process was fair enough (see Ginsburg writing for the dissenters
disputing those points). Additionally, the court seemed to put more burden on
plaintiffs (e.g., bring more data to the table even in the case of a content
valid test) to show that there was a equally valid selection process available
with less adverse impact.

I think this will lead to companies/agencies being more willing to implement
selection systems with adverse impact, particularly if they feel they had an
otherwise valid and fair process.

Warren

Warren Bobrow, Ph.D.
All About Performance, LLC
(310) 670-4175
www.allaboutperformance.biz

----- Original Message -----
From: David Kalish
To: HRNET@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: [HRNET] Ricci v. DeStefano





It is definitely going to impact how companies and courts view disparate
impact. Once a selection regimen is decided upon that is valid and on its face
racial/sexual neutral, the results have to be taken as they occur. We can't
change the criteria for selection if it happens not enough of some protected
class are eligible after application of those criteria.

Clear as mud? I think that is what the court is saying.

David Kalish

--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Sudhanshu Pant <sudhanshu_pant2002@...> wrote:

From: Sudhanshu Pant <sudhanshu_pant2002@...>
Subject: [HRNET] Ricci v. DeStefano
To: hrnet@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 11:02 PM

I wanted to seek your opinion on how the Supreme Court ruling in the above
would impact hiring and promotion practices in the United States?

Regards

Sudhanshu Pant

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]