Frank Ricci appears to have worked harder than most or all of the black applicants. He quit moonlighting, hired a tutor, and studied for many hours. His hard work had "disparate impact."

A policy against promoting people with criminal records would similarly have "disparate impact."

Yes, but would that hard work studying for the exam have made him a better captain? The test seems to suggest it would have. Throwing out the test was wrong, but no more wrong than designing a test that isn't a fair assessment of someone's ability to perform the job.

If you and I are equally capable of being promoted to supervisor of the mail room, should your ability to quote Shakespeare make you more qualified?

Don't get me wrong, I think this case went the right way. I'm just pointing out that not all tests are created equal, and high test scores do not necessarily predict success.

Agree with both of you. An employer has a responsibility to create criteria for promotion that results in promotions of the best candidates. If they have not done that, and the method they did pick excludes a certain race, then maybe they are being discriminatory. But if they can defensibly say that their criteria results in the best candidates being promoted, then it should not matter how diverse the sucessful candidates are.

Moreover, why was the issue raised by the racist chiefs of the city AFTER the test, not before?