What Public-Sector Employers Need to Know About Promotional Practices, Procedures, and Tests in Public Safety Promotional Processes: After Ricci v. DeStefano.
In June 2009, the Ricci v. DeStefano case was decided by five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court judges. This case impacts public-sector employers by expanding on the rule called a 'strong basis in evidence.' Under this rule, a public-sector employer cannot engage in certain activities for the asserted...
| Publicado en: | Public Personnel Management Vol. 42; no. 2; pp. 151 - 191 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | legal case tables/charts Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Sage Publications Inc.
jun2013
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=107956359&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 107956359 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 00910260 PPM jtl: Public Personnel Management issn: 00910260 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: jun2013 vid: 42 iid: 2 pid: 344 pub: Sage Publications Inc. place: Thousand Oaks, California artinfo: ui: 107956359 88923770 10.1177/0091026013487046 107956359 ppf: 151 ppct: 40 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P tig: atl: What Public-Sector Employers Need to Know About Promotional Practices, Procedures, and Tests in Public Safety Promotional Processes: After Ricci v. DeStefano. aug: au: Biddle, Richard E. Biddle, Daniel A. affil: 'Biddle & Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA, USA; Biddle Consulting Group, Inc., Folsom, CA, USA; Fire and Police Selection, Inc., Folsom, CA, USA sug: subj: Public Sector Labor Supply Employer-Employee Relations Liability, Legal Legislation and Jurisprudence United States Race Factors Minority Groups ab: In June 2009, the Ricci v. DeStefano case was decided by five of the nine U.S. Supreme Court judges. This case impacts public-sector employers by expanding on the rule called a 'strong basis in evidence.' Under this rule, a public-sector employer cannot engage in certain activities for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying unintentional disparate impact, unless the employer has a 'strong basis in evidence' to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability. The evidence for this rule must be in place before a public-sector employer takes a race-conscious action to minimize adverse impact. This article critically evaluates the test validity discussion that occurred in the Ricci case; addresses topics relevant to the new rule not covered by the decision, such as the cutoff used, weights used, differentiating requirements of the rank-ordered list, and the rule of three; and describes guidelines for conducting a particular kind of study in an employment context, called a Croson Study, that can be used to gather a 'strong basis in evidence.' This article identifies circumstances under which a Croson Study is needed, and how to do it that will allow public-sector employers to evaluate whether they may be justified-using the Supreme Court's 'strong-basis-in-evidence' rule-to institute race-conscious remedies under Title VII. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: legal case tables/charts Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|