Ethics 4 Case Study
Before attempting to determine if the city of New Haven acted responsibly in rejecting test results on the grounds of lack of minority representation, it would be important to examine the race issue in this case. Normally, it is a very unsettling experience when a racial issue concerning a promotion, a sacking, or any other form of Corporate America function, emerges. It does not matter whether the individuals concerned are African Americans, Hispanic, Asian, or third world immigrants because the main issue you would need to confront, from a managerial perspective, is if the individual is really racist or is it the situation that is racist. In most cases the situation is hardly racist and the only racist thing in the whole matter is the person claiming to have been discriminated.
Job applications on the other hand rely on the applicants’ qualifications for the relevant position as it is by these qualifications that the best candidate is determined. Without relevant certification or a degree to your name, you would hardly land that job, regardless of the number of years you have spent in that field, or your racial background. This leaves the work-force managers in Corporate America in a tough position of deciding who to hire besides other equally tough decisions like who to promote and, dreadfully, who gets the pink slip. With regards to the firefighters’ case in New Haven, CT, there were more pertinent issues than racism and bias testing that made the rejection of the test unjustified. The need for a diverse workforce does not necessarily mean that working standards should be compromised in order to meet affirmative action demands.
The issue involved a 2003 initiative by the New Haven Fire Department to promote its employees to Lieutenant and Captain positions through written and oral examinations according to the requirements of the state civil service and the state law. The Fire Department chose an Illinois based company, IOS, to set the examinations. Those who qualified for promotion on the basis of having passed the test were seven whites and two Hispanics. None of the black candidates qualified.
The results were rejected by the New Haven Civil Service Board on the advice of the city’s attorney, Thomas Ude. The white and Hispanic firefighters sued the Board seeking to have the results certified claiming that they were denied their 14th Amendment rights and cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964 among other laws. It is important to note that African Americans make up 37.4 percent of the New Haven population yet the highest scoring African American in the test for captaincy ranked 16th with twelve whites and three Hispanics ahead. In the exam for Lieutenant position the best performing African American ranked 14th.
Any manager who upholds values and ethics would readily agree that no employee should be a victim of workplace discrimination on the basis of his or her racial background. However, the issue of promotion is based on merit which can only be ascertained by how well the employee qualifies for the position. Qualification for promotion should therefore be treated separately from racial issues in as much as we would want to have a more diversified workforce. The test, as it was proven in court, was designed in a way that ensured broad racial participation in its content as well as administration. It was also proved that the process was open, free, and fair. Based on the hearings, there was no strong evidence pointing at a disparate-impact violation and therefore the city did not act reasonably in rejecting the tests solely because of racial disparity in the results.
The rejection of the test results by the city of New Haven was simply unreasonable. The promotions were meant to be earned on the basis of performance and potential to competently shoulder future additional responsibilities. The promotion criteria did not include demographics or skin color but simply the ability to perform which could only be judged through the specially designed test. Being a citizen of the United States with minority roots does not mean that one should take advantage of the situation and claim for preferential treatment. In Corporate America, one has to be ready to compete for better opportunities and positions by merit and not by citing one’s ancestry or heritage as the major prerequisite for being considered for the every available opportunity.
It should also be noted that all the candidates from all the races involved had studied for the test for months and at considerable financial and personal expenses. Thus the injury the City caused to the qualified candidates by rejecting the test on racial statistics rather than on performance was more severe. For example, the leading plaintiff in the case, Frank Ricci, stated in an affidavit that he was dyslexic and had therefore to study for as long as 13 hours a day for the promotion exam. He further had to pay someone to convert materials from textbooks into audiotapes, make flash cards, and join a study group. His efforts paid and he was among those who passed the test. From a managerial point of view, Frank Ricci’s efforts to pass the test are a reflection of his dedication and commitment to the job and he rightly deserved to be promoted regardless of the racial status of the test results.
It can also be accurately argued that the City’s rejection was in support of penalizing non-minority workers in favor of minorities in the promotion process. The court showed sympathy for the Caucasian victims of reverse-discrimination of affirmative action initiatives. Remedial action for past crimes should not justify practicing of racially motivated politics (Klein, 2009). An effective manager should never shy off from confronting the legal and ethical question of whether affirmative action legally or morally justifies present racial discrimination of a non-minority group in order to make redress for, or even remedy, past discrimination against a minority group. Actions aimed at making redress for past racial discrimination, for example giving promotions on the basis of race, should be supported by strong evidence showing that an injustice had been committed (Appling, 2010).
The case also presents a challenge to employers whereby rejecting the test in order to avoid discrimination lawsuits by minorities who failed to pass the test leads to disparate discrimination lawsuits from non-whites who passed the test. Testing, educational and performance requirements have always been a cause for legal problems for employers. However, one should always remember that “it is not unlawful for the employer to hire or promote employees on the basis of results of professionally developed ability tests provided that the tests are not designed to be used in a discriminatory fashion” (Cavico and Mujtaba, 2008, p. 98). The employer is expected to understand that tests are actually predictors of an employee’s work behavior and performance.
There are two key factors that managers must consider in giving tests. The first one is that the test must be related to the job and in consistency with the business. Secondly, they must ensure that the test uses valid and non-discriminatory criteria. A test that is designed to be race-neutral and meets the two aforementioned requirements should not present a problem to the employer regardless of whether it meets the employees’ expectations or those of affirmative action goals. Rejecting a properly designed test on affirmative action demands only ends up attracting reverse discrimination lawsuits from non-minorities who passed the test.
In conclusion, a managerial perspective on promotions should be more concerned with the ability and qualification of the candidates as depicted by their performance in the relevant tests. Where there is no cause to show that disparate or impact discrimination was exercised, the demands of affirmative action should not take precedence over a company’s pursuit for excellence. In fulfilling the need for diversity in the workforce, employers should ensure that the tests they use are free from any racial or gender bias and are in fact job-related (Gilbert, Stead & Ivancevich, 1999).
Racial impact should be one of the foremost considerations when choosing or designing a test. The potential for disparate impact needs to be addressed early enough to avoid lawsuits from non-minority candidates who pass a test that is later rejected as in the New Haven case. This process should not just be concentrated on hiring and promotions only but should be, even more significantly, be applied in job terminations too. If tests for hiring, promotion, and work termination are simply revised to favor minorities, then employers will still have to confront lawsuits on reverse discrimination from non-minorities.
References
Appling, L. (2010). Recent Development: Ricci v. DeStefano. Harvard Civil Rights-CivilLiberties Law Journal, 45, 147-166.
Cavico, F. J. & Mujtaba, B. G. (2008). Legal challenges for the global manager andentrepreneur. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
Gilbert, J. A., Stead, B. A. & Ivancevich, J.M. (1999). Diversity management: A neworganizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), 61-76.
Klein, L. (2009). Ricci v. DeStefano: “Fanning the Flames” of reverse discrimination in CivilService Selection. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, 4, 391- 405.
