557 U.S. 557 (2009)
Ricci v. DeStefano squarely confronted a long-simmering tension in employment discrimination law: how employers should navigate Title VII's twin prohibitions on intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) and policies that disproportionately harm protected groups (disparate impact).
Does an employer violate Title VII's prohibition on disparate treatment by intentionally discarding promotion exam results because of race to avoid potential disparate-impact liability, and if not categorically, what showing must an employer make to lawfully take such race-conscious action?
Title VII prohibits disparate treatment by making employment decisions because of race, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), and also prohibits neutral practices that cause a disparate impact on protected groups unless the employer shows the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A). Even if the employer meets that burden, a plaintiff may prevail by showing an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative practice that the employer refused to adopt, § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii), (C). While Title VII does not categorically bar all race-conscious measures, an employer may intentionally take race-conscious action to avoid disparate-impact liability only when it has a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be liable under the statute's disparate-impact provisions. Fear of litigation or statistical disparity alone is insufficient; the evidence must show that the challenged practice likely violates Title VII's disparate-impact standard and that no comparably valid, less-discriminatory alternative was rejected.
Yes. New Haven's decision to discard the test results was intentional disparate treatment under Title VII. The City lacked a strong basis in evidence to believe it would face disparate-impact liability if it certified the results. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment below and directed entry of summary judgment for the petitioners on their Title VII disparate-treatment claim; the equal protection claim was not reached.
Ricci establishes the operative test for employers contemplating race-conscious steps to avoid disparate-impact liability: they must possess a strong basis in evidence that their practice is unlawful under Title VII's disparate-impact framework. The decision clarifies that statistical disparities, without more, do not license intentional race-based decisions, and it underscores the importance of prospective validation, job-relatedness, and consideration of less-discriminatory alternatives before implementing selection procedures. For students and practitioners, the case is a cornerstone on the interplay between disparate treatment and disparate impact, guiding how to structure testing and promotion systems, how to respond to adverse racial statistics, and how to litigate claims under Title VII after the 1991 codification of disparate-impact standards.