icials claimed that if they validated the results they could in turn be sued by a minority community for developing a practice that disadvantaged the minority groups (Supreme Court of the US 2008).
The use of disparate treatment as an alternative to disparate impact has to be strongly justified based on evidences and reasonable standards (remedial action). The Judge rejected the claim that the Department did not discriminate but said that the Department was involved in making a decision based on race, which was more like disparate treatment. IF there is a conflict between disparate treatment and disparate impact, then disparate treatment should be avoided based on clear and outright evidences and standards.
Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964: “Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA) and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 amend several sections of Title VII.”
By invalidating the results, there was an impermissible disparate impact, which in turn amounted to a racial preference, and was against Title VII. The Court gave a decision in favor of the 12 firefighters claiming that invalidation of their test results was a violation under Title VII.
Another judge mentioned that the court failed to provide a clarification between the provisions of disparate impact under Title VII and the equal protection clause under the US Constitution (14th Amendment). Other evidences suggested that there were many flaws in the testing system adopted by New Haven, and if the testing system was better, the results outcome was have not been skewed.
The court found the racial decision making adopted by New Haven Department as discriminatory and hence had to reinstate the results. However, it was also found that the testing system adopted by New Haven was improper compared to that of other Departments. However, this was not a basis invalidating the results obtained by the White