[IPAC-List] Ricci v DeStefano

Warren Bobrow warren at allaboutperformance.biz
Tue Jun 30 17:15:03 EDT 2009

I think it left open what "better" alternative means. The majority wasn't convinced that the AC process would have been better (I think they called that information anecdotal), but the dissenters were. Of course, the CSB's expert wanting to sell them AC services had something to do with that.

It presents a real challenge for plaintiffs who have the burden of showing that there is a valid alternative with less adverse impact, particularly in the case of content-validated tests.


Warren Bobrow, Ph.D.
All About Performance, LLC
(310) 670-4175

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitch Stein" <Mitch.Stein at tn.gov>
To: <ipac-list at ipacweb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Ricci v DeStefano

> My read of the Court's majority opinion is that they seem to have validated an "ignorance is bliss" defense. They seem to focus on the fact that even though there were better alternatives New Haven could have chosen (e.g. assessment center), since this was only mentioned once to them the CSB had no clear knowledge that there were alternatives with equal (or better) validity that would likely produce less disparate impact. Therefore it was this lack of knowledge that made it impermissible for them to intentionally commit disparate treatment.


> Anyone else read their opinion the same way?


> cheers,

> Mitch



> Mitchell Stein, PhD

> Human Resources Research Psychologist

> TN Dept. of Human Resources

> (615) 532-8069



> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

> http://www.ipacweb.org/mailman/listinfo/ipac-list



More information about the IPAC-List mailing list