Nos. 07-1428 & 08-328 In the Supreme Court of the United States FRANK RICCI, ET AL., Petitioners, v. JOHN DESTEFANO, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF OF INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS BRETT DIGNAM SCOTT L. SHUCHART Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 432-4800 ANDREW J. PINCUS Counsel of Record CHARLES ROTHFELD Mayer Brown LLP 1909 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 263-3000 Counsel for Amici Curiaei TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................iii INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ....................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT..................................... 2 ARGUMENT................................................................ 3 PETITIONERS’ RIGID RULE WOULD IMPOSE HEAVY NEW BURDENS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY TITLE VII OR THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. ........................................... 3 A. Millions Of Municipal Hiring And Promotion Decisions Each Year Turn On Merit-Based Criteria, Principally Competitive Examinations.................................... 5 B. Municipalities Frequently Face The Threat Of Title VII Disparate Impact Claims By Disappointed Applicants. .................................... 12 C. Petitioners’ Rigid Rule Effectively Eliminates Municipalities’ Ability To Avoid Litigation Over Employment Decisions And Will Increase Their Costs As Well As The Delays In Filling Positions. ................................. 17 D. Neither The Equal Protection Clause Nor Title VII Support Petitioners’ Rigid Rule. .......... 22 1. The Equal Protection Clause does not subject to strict scrutiny review a legitimate effort to ameliorate an examination’s disparate impact. .............. 26 2. Title VII’s disparate treatment provisions do not prohibit voluntary compliance with the statute’s own disparate impact principle........................ 32ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—continued Page 3. An employer that invokes ameliorating an examination’s disparate impact as a pretext for denying a job or promotion based on the applicant’s race is subject to liability under Title VII and, if a state actor, the Constitution..................... 34 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 36iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Adams v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2006)..............................................................15 Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) ..............................................................14, 33 Allen v. City of Chicago, 351 F.3d 306 (7th Cir. 2003) ..........................................16, 19, 20 Association Against Discrimination in Em-ployment v. City of Bridgeport, 647 F.2d 256 (2d. Cir. 1981) ................................17 Bartlett v. Strickland, No. 07-689 (Mar. 9, 2009) .......................................................24 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) ...........................................................13 Black Law Enforcement Officers Association v. City of Akron, 824 F.2d 475 (6th Cir. 1987)........16 Bombalicki v. Pastore, 2001 WL 267617 (Conn. Super. Feb. 28, 2001) ...............................26 Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. City of Bridgeport, 933 F.2d 1140 (2d Cir. 1991) ...........16 Bryant v. City of Chicago, 200 F.3d 1092 (7th Cir. 2000) ...............................................16, 20 Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (1996)................23, 24, 32 Carney v. Civil Service Commission, 30 P.3d 861 (Colo. App. 2001) .............................10 Chicago Firefighters Local 2 v. City of Chicago, 249 F.3d 649 (7th Cir. 2001)................................20 City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (1989)...................................22-23, 25iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued Page(s) City of Round Rock v. Whiteaker, 241 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007) ......................................10 Collado v. City of Albuquerque, 45 P.3d 73 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) ............................................10 DiRado v. Civil Service Commission, 224 N.E.2d 193 (Mass. 1967)......................................29 Firefighter’s Institute for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, 220 F.3d 898 (8th Cir. 2000) ......................................................16 Fudge v. City of Providence Fire Department, 766 F.2d 650 (1st Cir. 1985) ................................16 Gilbert v. City of Little Rock, 799 F.2d 1210 (8th Cir. 1986) ......................................................16 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)..................................12, 13, 14 Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)....................24 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).................24 Guardians Association of New York City Police Department v. Civil Service Commission, 630 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1980) ...................................17 Gulino v. New York State Education Department, 460 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2006) ...........16 Hamer v. City of Atlanta, 872 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir. 1989) ....................................................19 Henry v. Civil Service Commission, 2001 WL 862658 (Conn. Super. July 3, 2001) ....................26 Hood v. New Jersey Department of Civil Serv-ices, 680 F.2d 955 (3d Cir. 1982) .........................17v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—continued Page(s) Hurley v. City of New Haven, 2006 WL 1609974 (Conn. Super. May 23, 2006) ................26 In re Chicago Police Officer Promotions, 1994 WL 424146 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 1994)..........19 Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004)..............................................13 Isabel v. City of Memphis, 404 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2005)..............................................................16 Johnson v. City of Memphis, 73 Fed. Appx. 123 (6th Cir. 2003) ......................................................16 Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)..............................................34 Katz v. Hoberman, 272 N.E.2d 81 (N.Y. 1971) ........29 Kelly v. City of New Haven, 881 A.2d 978 (Conn. 2005) ...................................................10, 26 King v. St.