Case comment—Briscoe v. City of New Haven: a statistical analysis of the effect of different written/oral exam weightings in disparate impact claims. (14th January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Miao, Weiwen
• Is Part Of: Law, probability & risk. Volume 15:Number 1(2016)
• Page Start: 87
• Page End: 93
• Publication Date: 2016-01-14
• Subjects: discrimination -- disparate impact -- statistical analysis -- weighting; Proximate cause (Law) -- Periodicals; Risk -- Periodicals; Law -- Mathematical models -- Periodicals; Law -- Methodology -- Periodicals; Probabilities -- Periodicals; Risk assessment -- Periodicals; Law -- Mathematical models; Law -- Methodology; Probabilities; Proximate cause (Law); Risk; Risk assessment; Periodicals; 340.1
• DOI: 10.1093/lpr/mgv019
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1470-8396

Abstract

Abstract : This case comment analyses the appropriateness of the 60/40 written/oral weighting of the promotional exams challenged by Briscoe. The plaintiff claimed that the oral exam had less disparate impact on African Americans, was a better way to access candidates' ability and hence should be weighted more. The comment shows that when more weight is given to the oral exam, the number of African American promotions 'increases', but the number of Hispanic promotions and the total number of minority promotions 'decreases'. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrates that for most of the written/oral weightings, including the one advocated by the plaintiff, the number of African Americans who would be promoted to lieutenant remains the same, supporting district court's conclusion that the weighting used by the City did not have disparate impact on African Americans 'as a race'. In addition, the comment illustrates that even though the oral exam had less disparate impact on African Americans, it had 'more' disparity on Hispanics. Considering minority candidates as a whole group, the disparities of the oral and the written exams were about the same.