Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 178 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FRANK RICCI, et al, ) CASE NO.: 3:04-CV-1109

)
Plaintiffs, )
) JUDGE ARTERTON
vs. )
)
CITY OF NEW HAVEN, et al, )
)
Defendants. )

MOVANT PLAINTIFF-INTERVENORS MOTION TO STAY

Movant Plaintiff-Intervenors, through counsel, move this Court for an order temporarily

staying any further promotions from the eligibility lists for the ranks of Lieutenant and Captain,

based upon the examinations conducted in November and December, 2003, until such time as

this Court: 1) rules on Movants’ motion to intervene; and 2) Movants filing their motion for

preliminary injunction relating to further promotions pending full and fair litigation of the

promotional testing issues which have heretofore not been heard.

This Court through an order issued November 24, 2009, (Doc. 168) has ordered the City

to certify the eligibility lists and promote specific persons identified therein. To date, no black

firefighter has been heard in this case – nor could they have. Until the lists were certified, there

was no standing nor an adverse action upon which to base any conceivable action. (See, Movants

motion to Intervene, Doc. 164).

Movants filed a motion to stay and for status conference, which was denied by this Court

on November , 2009 (Order, Doc. 175). In that order, this Court noted that it was required by the

Supreme Court decision to promote the fourteen candidates identified by the Plaintiffs and the

City. This Court also noted that the Supreme Court order had “no impact or effect” on any other

1
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 178 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 2 of 5

promotions. (Order, Doc. 175). Further, this Court stated that it is unknown whether any “other

Plaintiffs are entitled to remedial promotions.” (Order, Doc. 175).

Shortly after the initial fourteen promotions order by this Court, the City announced that

it intended to promote another ten (10) candidates from those same defective eligibility lists.

(Exhibit 1). The target date for these additional promotions is December 10, 2009. Movants

now file another motion to stay any further promotions from these eligibility lists until such time

as the tests themselves can be subjected to thorough scrutiny.

Throughout this case, neither the City nor the original plaintiffs ever disputed the validity

of the promotional examinations used to determine the eligibility lists. Such is not the case as to

the Movants, who assert that not only are the promotional examinations in issue not valid, but

that those promotional examinations cannot ever be validated. Their position is supported by the

Brief Amici Curiae filed in support of the City of New Haven at the United States Supreme

Court by several Industrial Organizational psychologists. (Exhibit 2). Several Industrial

Organizational psychologists also filed a related Brief Amici Curiae also questioning the validity

of these tests and the use of job knowledge tests for promotional purposes in general. (Exhibit

3).

If, as the Movants assert, the promotional examinations in issue in this case are not valid,

then a substantially different fact pattern arises before this Court than that which has existed to

date by the agreement of the existing parties, specifically the examinations being used as the

basis to rank candidates and to make promotions are deficient, substandard and not sufficiently

job-related to warrant either rank ordering or selection for promotion. No doubt, never having to

address the validity of the actual examinations themselves made life much easier for all parties to

this point. There was no need for testing expert witnesses (there were none), no need for

2
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 178 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 3 of 5

validation reports (and none exist), and no one save a precious few even saw the actual

examinations, let alone the underlying testing data.

Movants submit that no candidate can justify being promoted from a deficient evaluation

and selection process that discriminates against any group – especially in the context of this case

where everyone simply ignored test validity altogether. Movants are now at the place they

would have been in 2004 had the City certified the lists but before any promotions had been

made – with one notable addition: the identification of all the promotees – existing and putative -

- is now known. There is not a single black firefighter among the first 14 promotions; there are

only two, maybe three in the next proposed group of promotions.1 In the testing context, this

indicates that the test itself may be flawed. 2

This is why validation is so important and why it is so curious to Movants as to why the

examinations have never been addressed in this case. It is possible that a selection process that

has an adverse impact can still pass muster, if it can be demonstrated by the City that the

examination was sufficiently job related and consistent with business necessity to be valid and

the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that there are alternative measures that are equally valid that

have less adverse impact.3 See, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(k).

If additional promotions are made at this point, Movants could be irreparably harmed.

1
The City and the Plaintiffs also did not dispute that there was a prima facie case of disparate impact. Movants are
not really sure how this determination was made, since adverse impact ordinarily cannot be determined until all the
selections have been made, i.e., promotions are made and the eligibility list lapses. But in any event, that issue has
been resolved with this Court’s order: the identities of the putative promotees is known and impact ratios can now be
calculated with certainty.
2
In any given population of equally qualified individuals, one would expect to see a relatively even distribution of
selections made at random, or chance. When the results are not as would be expected in random selection within a
relevant range, then the issue of test validity arises. See, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection, 29 C.F.R.
1607, et al.
3
While there is Supreme Court dicta relating to the “good faith belief” as being a defense to a disparate impact suit,
in fact no such defense exists in disparate impact cases. First, the statute is clear what the burdens are and which
party bears them. Second, there is no case law that supports such a radically new defense, either. Third, this case
until now has never been a disparate impact case, only a disparate treatment case. Therefore, any issues relating to
disparate impact were not even before the Supreme Court in this case.

3
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 178 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 4 of 5

Clearly, while there are limited promotional slots available, there are certainly enough ( as

indicated by the proposed 10 additional promotions) to fulfill any remedies sought by the

Movants in this case.

Promotion affects not only the immediate economic issues relating to wage increases, but

also the loss of future opportunities within the New Haven Fire Department. Moreover,

promotional cycles are relatively infrequent. Therefore, the ability to advance within the fire

department would be greatly impaired, if not utterly defeated, for some of the Plaintiff-

Intervenors.

Movants have legitimate claims and causes of action which have yet to be heard. They

have a high probability of success on the merits, as indicated by the amici briefs filed by the

Industrial Organizational psychologists in this case. All of the Movants claims are timely due to

the protracted delays caused by this case. Therefore, Movants request that this Court stay further

promotions from these eligibility lists pending the resolution of validity of the promotional

examinations.

From the date that Movants receive the test data in its native format, it is estimated that 3-

4 months will be required to complete and submit their expert report regarding the promotional

tests and another unspecified time to complete discovery regarding their claims. It is unknown

how long it will take to obtain the testing data and information from the testing consultant.

Movants have already retained Industrial Organizational psychologists as expert witnesses and

are prepared to move forward upon being permitted to intervene.

4
 Case 3:04-cv-01109-JBA Document 178 Filed 12/07/2009 Page 5 of 5

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dennis R. Thompson________________

Dennis R. Thompson, Ohio Reg. No. 0030098
Christy B. Bishop, Ohio Reg. No. 0076100
Thompson & Bishop
2719 Manchester Rd.
Akron, Ohio 44319
330-753-6874
Fax: 330-753-7082
e-mail: tmpsnlaw@sbcglobal.net
bishopchristy@gmail.com

/s/ W. Martyn Philpot, Jr.

W. Martyn Philpot, Jr., Conn.
Reg. No. CT05747
Law Offices of W.Martyn Philpot, Jr., LLC
409 Orange Street
New Haven, CT 06511
203-624-4666
wmphilpot@philpotlaw.net

LOCAL COUNSEL FOR MOVANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing was sent to all counsel of record via ecf electronic
notification this 7 day of December, 2009.

/s/ Dennis R. Thompson_______________

One of the Attorneys for
Intervenor/Plaintiffs