In $2003,$ the New Haven Connecticut Fire Department had $15$ open management positions, $7$ for Captain, and $8$ for Lieutenant. As for many civil service jobs, a $$Rule of Three$$ is used in hiring: the fire department chooses from the three highest$-$scorers on a civil service test. After the test was finished, none of the department$$s black firefighters scored high enough on the test to be considered for the open positions. Fearful of a disparate treatment or disparate impact lawsuit, the City invalidated the test results, and did not promote anyone.

The city was still presented with a civil lawsuit, as $18$ firefighters who had passed the test complained that their civil rights had been violated because New Haven had denied them a promotion based on their race. Of the plaintiff firefighters, $17$ were white, and $1$ was Hispanic. After the trial court ruled in favor of New Haven, the firefighters appealed their case to the U$.$S$.$ Supreme Court in $2009.$

The question posed to the Supreme court was whether an employer may intentionally discriminate against employees of one race to lessen the unintentional disparate impact a policy or practice has on another race of employees. In a $5-4$ split decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff firefighters. The Court clarified in its written ruling that by disregarding the test results, New Haven had violated the firefighter plaintiffs$$ civil rights, discriminating against them based on their race and exposing them to disparate treatment. Essentially, avoiding liability under disparate impact does not excuse disparate treatment. The only way New Haven could have had a strong basis for invalidating the test results would have been to show that the test was not, in fact, job related and consistent with business necessity.

$1)$ Do you think the New Haven firefighters violated Title VII and how would you have handled this situation?