Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Ricci: An Employer Needed a Strong Basis in Evidence Before Discarding Promotion Results Because of Race

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 28, 2026

Ricci v. DeStefano arose when New Haven declined to certify promotional examinations after results showed significant racial disparities and public controversy.

The city acted because of race

The decision not to certify turned on the racial distribution of successful candidates, triggering disparate-treatment scrutiny.

Avoiding disparate impact can sometimes justify race-conscious action

Title VII permits an employer to respond when evidence strongly supports that it would otherwise face disparate-impact liability.

The record did not meet that threshold

The examinations were developed through job analyses, and the city lacked strong proof that they were deficient or that an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative was available.

The standard balances two Title VII commands

Employers must neither use unjustified barriers nor discard results based on race from mere fear of litigation or political pressure.

Key takeaways

• Validate selection tools before administration.
• Preserve the job analysis, scoring design, and alternatives considered.
• Quantify impact using the proper candidate pool.
• Require a strong evidentiary record before taking race-conscious corrective action.