Supreme Court Sides With Firefighters In Race Case 

(Published July 6, 2009)

 

On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5-4 that the city of New Haven, CT, violated Title VII when it discarded the results of promotion tests on which white candidates had outperformed minority candidates.

 

Some of the white and Hispanic firefighters who likely would have been promoted based on their good test performance sued the city, alleging that they were discriminated against based on their race. The city argued that if it had certified the test, it could have faced a Title VII disparate-impact lawsuit from the minority firefighters. While the lower courts sided with the city, the Supreme Court did not. Said the Court: "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

 

The Supreme Court held that the city did not have a "strong basis in evidence" to believe it would be subject to disparate-impact liability if it failed to take the race-based discriminatory action. Reason: The city could be liable for disparate-impact discrimination only if the exams at issue were not job-related and consistent with business necessity, or if there existed an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative that served the city's needs but that the city refused to adopt. The High Court found no substantial basis in evidence that the test was deficient in either respect.

 

The Court went on to say that, in light of this ruling, if, after the city certifies the test results, it faces a disparate-impact lawsuit, it can avoid liability based on "the strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability." (Ricci v. DeStefano, Nos. 07-1428, 08-328, 2009)

 

Supreme Court Roundup

Here are summaries of the other employment-law-related cases that the Supreme Court decided in its 2008-2009 term.

 

Age discrimination: In disparate-impact claims brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), plaintiffs must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence (which may be direct or circumstantial), that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged adverse employment action. "Unlike Title VII, the ADEA's text does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor." (Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., No. 08-441, 2009)

 

Retaliation: Title VII's anti-retaliation provision protects employees who speak out about discrimination while cooperating with their employer's internal investigation. "Nothing in the statute requires a freakish rule protecting an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative, but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when asked a question." (Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, TN, No. 06-1595, 2009)

 

Pregnancy discrimination: The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) does not apply retroactively. Pension benefits that are partially based on pre-PDA calculations need not be adjusted in light of the PDA. (AT&T v. Hulteen, et al., No. 07-543, 2009)

 

Benefits: Plan administrators are required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) to rely on the information on beneficiary designation forms. In this case, a deceased employee's ex-wife rightfully received his pension benefits — despite the fact that she had waived her rights to the benefits during divorce proceedings — because he had failed to remove her as his beneficiary and designate someone else. (Kennedy v. Plan Administrator for DuPont Savings and Investment Plan, No. 07-636, 2009)

 

Unions: The First Amendment permits a local union to charge non-member government workers for national litigation expenses as long as: 1) the subject matter of the litigation is of a kind that would be chargeable if the litigation were local, and 2) the charge is reciprocal in nature. (Locke v. Karass, No. 07-610, 2009)

 

Union dues: Idaho's ban on political payroll deductions, as applied to local governmental units, does not infringe the unions' First Amendment rights. Nothing in the First Amendment prevents a state from determining that its political subdivisions may not provide payroll deductions for political activities. (Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, No. 07-869, 2009)

 

Mandatory arbitration: A provision in a freely negotiated collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that clearly and unmistakably requires union members to arbitrate Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law. As in any contractual negotiation, a union may agree to the inclusion of an arbitration provision in a CBA in return for other concessions from the employer, and courts generally may not interfere in this bargained for exchange. (14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, No. 07-581, 2009)

 

Related Topic(s): Discrimination/Race Discrimination; Discrimination/Title VII; Discrimination/ADEA - Age Discrimination in Employment Act; Benefits/ERISA