Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSiegel, Reva
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:49.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:47:07Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:47:07Z
dc.date.issued2015-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/5003
dc.identifier.contextkey7933507
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/4540
dc.description.abstractRicci 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.titleRace-Conscious but Race-Neutral: The Constitutionality of Disparate Impact in the Roberts Court
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:47:07Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/5003
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6006&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
66AlaLRev653.pdf
Size:
2.296Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record