Race-Conscious but Race-Neutral: The Constitutionality of Disparate Impact in the Roberts Court
dc.contributor.author | Siegel, Reva | |
dc.date | 2021-11-25T13:34:49.000 | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-11-26T11:47:07Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-11-26T11:47:07Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00 | |
dc.identifier | fss_papers/5003 | |
dc.identifier.contextkey | 7933507 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/4540 | |
dc.description.abstract | Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven firefighters case, raised questions about the constitutionality of the disparate impact provisions of federal employment discrimination law. This Article draws on the Court's subsequent decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin to clarify disparate impact's constitutionality. In Fisher, no Justice expressed concern about Texas's decision to promote diversity at the state university by admitting the top percent of the state's high school graduates-state action that is race-conscious in purpose, but race-neutral in form. Approval of the percent plan in Fisher shows that under equal protection law of the Roberts Court disparate impact law is not unconstitutional in purpose, as Justice Scalia suggested in Ricci. | |
dc.title | Race-Conscious but Race-Neutral: The Constitutionality of Disparate Impact in the Roberts Court | |
dc.source.journaltitle | Faculty Scholarship Series | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2021-11-26T11:47:07Z | |
dc.identifier.legacycoverpage | https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/5003 | |
dc.identifier.legacyfulltext | https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6006&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1 |