[IPAC-List] Ricci v DeStefano

[Warren Bobrow]

Bryan,

I agree with you that the majority reinforced the shifting burden model.

For this particular set of circumstances, the court seemed to say that 
agencies must certify a valid test even if they don't like the results.

Warren

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bryan Baldwin" <Bryan.Baldwin at doj.ca.gov>
To: <IPAC-List at ipacweb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] Ricci v DeStefano



> Having now read the whole thing (okay, I haven't read the dissenting 

> opinions yet) I am struck by how little this seems to change things. 

> There's some stuff in here that can make us feel good about validation 

> work, but seems to me the court essentially said, "An employer, on rare 

> occasions, can engage in disparate treatment to forestall liability for 

> disparate impact, but you simply haven't shown enough evidence to convince 

> us that you would lose a disparate impact case."

>

>>>> "Aamodt, Michael G" <maamodt at RADFORD.EDU> 6/30/2009 2:13 PM >>>

> Mitch,

>

> I don't read it quite that way. I think they key thing is WHEN they knew 

> it. Once the testing was done, it was too late to consider "potential" 

> alternatives. Assessment centers have significant black-white differences 

> (Dean, Roth, & Bobko, 2008) and would also have adverse impact. 

> Furthermore, there is no guarantee that assessment centers would have 

> equal validity to a combination of job knowledge and what amounts to a 

> structured interview. What I took away from reading the opinion is that 

> the court believed that the job analysis and test construction process 

> were reasonably done and job related. As a result, the City would have 

> survived a challenge. I think to automatically ASSUME that an assessment 

> center would have equal validity and lower adverse impact to any 

> combination of assessments is not supported by the literature.

>

> Thoughts?

>

> _________________________

>

> Michael G. Aamodt, Ph.D. (Mike)

> Professor Emeritus

> Department of Psychology

> Radford University

> Radford, VA  24142-6946

> (202) 280-2172

> maamodt at radford.edu

> http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu <http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

> From: ipac-list-bounces at ipacweb.org on behalf of Mitch Stein

> Sent: Tue 6/30/2009 5:02 PM

> To: ipac-list at ipacweb.org

> 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

>

>

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

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

>

>

> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain 

> confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the 

> use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use 

> or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the 

> Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended 

> recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the 

> communication.

> _______________________________________________________

> IPAC-List

> IPAC-List at ipacweb.org

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

>

>