London & Amburn, P.C.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision that the New Haven, Connecticut Fire Department had engaged in racial discrimination sparked much media attention. The decision was a hot topic not only because Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s decision at the Second Circuit was overturned by her soon-to-be peers, but also because it indicates the United States Supreme Court may be blazing a new trail when determining whether Title VII has been breached.

In its controversial decision, the Supreme Court held (in a 5-4 vote) that 19 Caucasian firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter had been discriminated against in favor of their minority comrades. The Court reasoned that the Fire Department had discriminated on the basis of race when it threw out the results of a promotional test on which the Caucasian men had scored better than their minority peers. Importantly, the Court held that despite the fact that “the racial adverse impact …was significant, and…the City was faced with a prima facie case of disparate-impact liability… [f]ear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race in rejecting examination results, to the detriment of individuals who passed examinations and qualified for promotions.”¹ The Fire Department administered a test to firefighters as part of the criteria for promotion. The results of the tests were clear that the white firefighters had performed better than the minority firefighters. After it was clear that the exam had produced a disparate impact, the city threw out the test because it feared a discrimination lawsuit. The city was sued, however, by the white firefighters, who claimed that they had been discriminated against because the test was fair, related to employment, and was only discarded because of the unintentional, yet valid outcome.

After this decision, you may have questions regarding how to comply with Title VII. This article will explain the basics of Title VII as it relates to legal (and illegal) treatment of certain protected individuals. This article does not discuss other anti-discrimination federal or state laws, which may also be applicable to the workplace.

Title VII is the general term for the federal law that makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The discrimination cannot be intentional acts committed on the basis of protected individuals’ status, (disparate treatment) or unintentional acts that have a disproportionate adverse effect on protected individuals (disparate impact).²

Disparate treatment can occur when an employer intentionally treats a person less favorably than others because of that person’s protected minority status.³ Disparate impact can occur when an employer unintentionally causes a detrimental effect on individuals’ employment opportunities because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.⁴ If the employer is sued for alleged discrimination in violation of Title VII, the burden of proof is different for intentional, versus unintentional, acts.⁵

As the Supreme Court stated in Ricci, the purpose of Title VII is to create equal opportunities within the workplace, and prevent private employers from discriminating against certain individuals because of that individual’s protected status due to the person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.⁶ Title VII protects employees (not independent contractors) from discriminatory acts, practices, policies, and procedures of an employer that would deprive or adversely affect that employee’s employment opportunities because of that employee’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.⁷ As the Ricci case makes clear, “color” encompasses whites as well.

Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In order to comply with the non-discrimination requirements, it is necessary for employers to ensure that its place of employment is free of discriminatory practices, policies, and procedures. Further, it is wise for employers to educate their employees, independent contractors, and other personnel that discriminatory practices will not be condoned or tolerated.

¹ Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 2662 (2009).

² 42 U. S. C. § 2000e–2(a)(1), § 2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(i).

³ 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1).

⁴ 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(2).

⁵ 42 U.S.C.A. (k)(1)(a).

⁶ Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 2662 (2009).

⁷ 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e-2(a).

Disclaimer: The information contained herein is strictly informational; it is not to be construed as legal advice.