Talk:Hayden v. County of Nassau

Untitled
From Ricci v. DeStefano district court opinion:
 * 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999), the Second Circuit held that race-conscious configuration of an entry-level police  department exam did not violate Title VII or the Equal Protection  Clause. In that case, the Nassau County Police Department was operating  under several consent decrees prohibiting it from engaging in discrimination  in its selection of police officers, and particularly from utilizing  examinations with disparate impact on minority applicants. Following  development of a test by the county and Department [**41]  of Justice  advisors, a validity analysis was conducted to determine which configuration  of the test was sufficiently job-related "yet minimized the adverse  impact on minority applicants. Of the twenty-five sections administered  to the applicants, the [technical report] recommended that Nassau County  use nine sections as the . . . test." Id. at 47. A class  of White and Latino officers challenged use of the adjusted test under  Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment, inter alia, contending  that the deliberate design of the test to reduce adverse impact on African-American  candidates necessarily discriminated against them on the basis of race.  The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs' contentions, finding plaintiffs  were "mistaken in treating racial motive as a synonym for a constitutional  violation" and observing that "[e]very antidiscrimination  statute aimed at racial discrimination, and every enforcement measure  taken under such a statute, reflect a concern with race. That does not  make such enactments or actions unlawful or automatically suspect .  . ." Id. at 48-49 (quoting Raso v. Lago, 135 F.3d 11,  16 (1st Cir.)) (internal [**42]  quotation marks omitted).  The Hayden court further held that the construction of the Nassau  County test for the purpose of minimizing adverse impact on minorities  was not intentional "reverse discrimination" against whites  because the same nine test sections were used for all applicants, so  it was "simply not analogous to a quota system or a minority set-aside  where candidates, on the basis of their race, are not treated uniformly."  Id. at 50. Rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the design of the  test reflected impermissible discriminatory intent, the Second Circuit  wrote that "nothing in our jurisprudence precludes the use of race-neutral  means to improve racial and gender representation. . . . [T]he intent  to remedy the disparate impact of the prior exams is not equivalent  to an intent to discriminate against non-minority applicants."  Id. at 51.