Court tackles racial bias in work promotions
WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday of a city's decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion test after blacks scored disproportionately lower than whites. Yet it was unclear how much leeway the court might leave employers nationwide to make sure tests and other job criteria don't exclude minorities.
Many questions in the New Haven, Conn., case that could affect public and private employers came down to when managers can take account of race.
"How do you draw the line between race-conscious (action) that's permitted and racial discrimination that's not?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked. He and other conservative justices suggested New Haven had crossed the line.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on such disputes, indicated that the white firefighters who sued New Haven for invalidating results that could have earned them promotions might have a valid claim of intentional discrimination. The city "looked at the results," he said, "and it classified the successful and unsuccessful applicants by race."
Kennedy also raised concerns about how to assess employers' efforts to ensure that testing and other general requirements do not exclude minorities.
The case is one of several race-related dilemmas before the justices this term. Among the spectators was Eric Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, who earlier in the morning session was officially presented at the court by Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
New Haven officials canceled the results of a 2003 exam after no blacks and only two Hispanic applicants qualified for promotions based on their scores. (Of the 118 applicants for promotion to captain or lieutenant who took the test, a total 50 were racial minorities.) City officials said they feared claims of bias from the minorities. They said they also believed the test was flawed in determining the best candidates for promotion.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars direct discrimination based on race or sex. It also restricts indirect bias that might arise from tests or other standards that end up disproportionately disqualifying minorities or women from jobs.
