The Ricci Case: Prelude to a Decision

The current U.S. Supreme Court case, Ricci v. DeStefano, has garnered a great deal of press interest in recent months. In the midst of the Court’s impending decision on the case—Ricci will continue to be of significance to both the media and the field of industrial-organizational psychology.

The case revolves around employment testing and selection practices at a municipal fire department in New Haven, Connecticut. Seventeen incumbent white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who scored high enough on a test battery to be promoted filed a lawsuit against the City of New Haven when the city refused to certify the overall results after finding that no incumbent African American firefighters scored high enough on the exam to be promoted. The city argues the test was invalid and unfair to the African American firefighter applicants within the department, and that the city was within its rights to protect itself from a Civil Rights lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue that the test should be upheld as a valid measure of the most qualified candidates for promotion.

The case is likely to have significant implications for the field of industrial-organizational psychology. SIOP members all over the world work in the fields of employment testing, selection, and hiring, as well as study employment law, employment discrimination, Civil Rights regulations, and workplace diversity.

SIOP acknowledges that the opinions of its members on this case vary and represent a variety of viewpoints and arguments. SIOP as a society does not endorse or support either the plaintiff or defendant in the Ricci case, but SIOP has historically supported the use of evidence-based solutions and practices in the workplace. SIOP was instrumental in developing the “Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures,” which represents the consensus on professional knowledge on this subject (click here to purchase a copy of the principles). These principles aid employers in developing valid, scientifically-based procedures in the workplace.

SIOP has published information and opinions on this case in The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist (TIP), including a discussion of the legal issues and discussions of test development processes and professional practice in TIP (here and here).  More information regarding the case, including links to a transcript of the oral arguments, each side’s merit briefs, and all “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs, can also be found on the American Bar Association’s public education Web site.

After publishing the TIP articles, SIOP is now offering members a platform for discussing the case throughThe Exchange. Share your opinions now by posting your comments under this story. Submissions for longer editorials (blog posts as opposed to comments) are also welcome and can be submitted through the Exchange submission form.

Note: This document was prepared as an informational piece by the SIOP Administrative Office at the direction and with the approval of the Electronic Communications Committee and SIOP President Kurt Kraiger. 

Edited June 17, 2009
 

Comments

[Lance Seberhagen]

On June 17th, SIOP edited its June 10th "informational piece" (The Ricci Case: Prelude to a Decision) to say that it was "prepared...by the SIOP Administrative Office at the direction and with the approval of the Electronic Communications Committee and SIOP President Kurt Kraiger."

I guess that answers the authorship question.

SIOP still has made no direct comment on, or acknowledgement of, the important amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court by the five distinguished SIOP Fellows. By not commenting on the brief, SIOP is, in effect, “taking sides” and allowing the brief to speak for SIOP.

[Phillip Gilmore]

Msr. Seberhagen, good thoughts about the SA-SP model and posting the amicus brief.
To weigh in with my non-expert opinion on Ricci, it is hard to imagine the Supreme Court overturning this one. If New Haven doubts the validity or fairness of the test, it is their prerogative to throw out the results. It is a no-call; no employment decision was actually made based on the test. It's tough to challenge a no-call.
The unfortunate element is the betrayed efforts and hopes of employees who invested in test preparation. The test-takers should at least be reimbursed for related expenses (but that's neither I nor O).
-Phillip Gilmore, George Mason University

[Locke]

Who designed the selection system in question?

[Lance Seberhagen]

I have three comments.

1. I wish the SIOP Exchange would identify the author of each posting, including the one for the SIOP editorial (above) in the Ricci case.

2. In response to the anonymous SIOP statement on "testing and selection practices," I would like to note that SIOP is not a society of "scientists and practitioners." SIOP is a society of "scientist-practitioners." I reject the idea that all academics are scientists and all practitioners are not. In I/O, all practitioners are scientist-practitioners. Conducting a test validation study or an employee attitude survey is scientific research, regardless of whether the results are published in a scientific journal. If one wants to be technical about it, one could say that SIOP is a society of scientist-academics and scientist-practitioners.

3. What is really disappointing is that SIOP has not kept members informed about the important amicus brief submitted by five distinguished SIOP Fellows to the Supreme Court on 3/25/09, regarding the Ricci case. I asked the SIOP Administrative Office to post the amicus brief on the SIOP website a few days before the SIOP conference, and I know others have asked SIOP to post something, too. But for unknown reasons, SIOP has been very careful to post absolutely nothing about the amicus brief until now, assuming my comment is posted.

On first reading, the amicus brief appears to be the work of SIOP, but it is not. The amicus brief states that it is solely the work of the five I/O psychologists and their legal counsel. OK, fine. But then why would SIOP avoid posting anything about the amicus brief on its website? SIOP would not be "taking sides" by merely posting the brief and allowing members to comment on it. What do other members think about this?

I/O AMICUS BRIEF
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-328_RespondentAmCuIndus-OrgPsychologists.pdf