Please help me with this, thank you in advance.

CASE STUDY Dealing with Unexpected Test Results In 2003, the New Haven Fire Department in Connecticut them a promotion based on their race. Of the plaintiff fire- had 15 open management positions. As for many civil ser-fighters, 17 were white, and I was Hispanic. After the trial vice jobs, a "Rule of Three" is used in hiring: The fire de court ruled in favor of New Haven, the firefighters appealed partment chooses from the three highest-scorers on a civil their case to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2009. service test. After the test was finished, none of the depart- The question posed to the Supreme court was whether ment's black firefighters scored high enough on the test to an employer may intentionally discriminate against employ- qualify for the open positions. Fearful of a disparate treat- ees of one race to lessen the unintentional disparate impact ment or disparate impact lawsuit, the city invalidated the test a policy or practice has on another race. In a 5-4 split deci- results, and did not promote anyone. sion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the firefighters. The city was still presented with a civil lawsuit, as 18 The Court clarified in its written ruling that by disregard- firefighters who had passed the exam complained that their ing the test results, New Haven had violated the plaintiffs' ejvil rights had been violated because New Haven had denied civil rights, discriminating against them based on their race 120 and exposing them to disparate treatment. Essentially, avoid- ing liability under disparate impact does not excuse dispa- rate treatment. The only way New Haven could have had a strong basis for invalidating the test results would have been to show that the exam was not, in fact, job related and con- sistent with business necessity. QUESTIONS: 1. Do you agree with the Supreme Court's decision? Why or why not? 2. What else do you think New Haven could have done when it learned about the test's disparate impact