For what has been described as the most important Equal Protection case of the decade, Atlantic Legal filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of several prominent legal and political science scholars. The case involved a civil service examination administered by the City of New Haven, Connecticut in order to determine which City firefighters would be eligible for promotion. The results were disproportionate as all the candidates who scored well enough to be promoted were either Caucasian or Hispanic; no African-Americans were eligible to be promoted according to the test results. Motivated by the fear of a suit brought on by the ineligible African–American candidates, the City refused to certify the test. Ricci and others whose scores proved them eligible to be promoted claimed racial discrimination on the part of the City and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment for the City, however, claiming that since no candidates were promoted, there were no grounds for a claim of racial discrimination. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Foundation’s amicus brief stressed that the plaintiffs did not need to show true racial animus in order to prove racial discrimination under the Equal Protection clause. The Foundation argued that New Haven's actions must be reviewed under "strict scrutiny" because race-based government actions prompt strict scrutiny, requiring the government to show both a compelling state interest and that the action was narrowly tailored to meet that interest. The decision not to certify the exam was based on race because New Haven relied on "raw racial labels and distributions" to reach its decision not to certify the exam and then deny eligible candidates promotion. The decision not to certify the examination because the higher scoring candidates were not African-American is a racial motivation which triggers strict scrutiny. New Haven fails a strict scrutiny review, because it lacks a compelling and valid state interest in refusing to certify the exam and deny willing and eligible candidates promotions. Ricci v. DeStefano raised questions as to what steps employers may take where avoidance of possible discrimination against one group may result in discrimination against another group. On June 29, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, in favor of the firefighters, adopting in the Title VII context the “strong-basis-in-evidence” standard utilized in the constitutional context by the Court in Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986). The Court found the City’s race-based rejection of the test results failed this standard. The Court found that evidence of racially adverse impact was undisputed and that the City could only be liable for disparate impact if the exams at issue were not job related and consistent with business necessity, or if there existed an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative that served the City’s need by that the City refused to adopt. There was no substantial basis in evidence for either.