Wards Cove Packing Company, Inc. v. Atonio Brief Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents
Public Court Documents
September 30, 1988
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Wards Cove Packing Company, Inc. v. Atonio Brief Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, 1988. 38bc8b78-c89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/74b650e3-a66c-4079-a882-bc88618c0ffa/wards-cove-packing-company-inc-v-atonio-brief-amici-curiae-in-support-of-respondents. Accessed May 17, 2025.
Copied!
No. 87-1387
E i - J - I S
I n the
&ttjtrrmr Olmtrt nf % Mnttrii States
October T erm, 1988
W ards Cove P acking Company,
Castle & Cooke, I nc.,
I nc ., and
Petitioners,
v.
F rank A tonio, et at.,
Respondents.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., THE MEXICAN AMERICAN
LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, AND
THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATION FUND AS AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS
A ntonia H ernandez
E. R ichard L arson
J ose R oberto J uarez, J r .
Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational
Fund
634 South Spring Street
11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90014
(213) 629-2512
R uben F ranco
K enneth K imerling
Puerto Rican Legal Defense
and Education Fund
99 Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10013
(212) 219-3360
J ulius LeV onne Chambers
Charles Stephen R alston
R onald L. E llis
NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10013
(212) 219-1900
B ill L ann L ee*
P atrick O. P atterson, Jr.
T heodore M. Shaw
NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.
634 South Spring Street
Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90014
(213) 624-2405
Counsel for Amici Curiae
* Counsel of Record
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. W hether, on th e fa c t s o f t h is
c a s e , th e c o u r t o f a p p ea ls c o r r e c t l y h e ld
th a t th e e v id e n ce e s ta b lis h e d a prima
f a c i e ca se o f d is p a r a te im pact.
2 . W hether t h i s C ou rt s h o u ld
o v e r r u le th e e v id e n t ia r y stan d ard s f o r
d is p a r a t e im pact ca se s a r t i c u la t e d in
G riggs v . Duke Power Co. and i t s p rogen y .
3. W hether, on th e fa c t s o f t h is
c a s e , th e c o u r t o f a p p ea ls c o r r e c t l y
c o n s id e re d th e cu m u la tive e f f e c t o f a
r a n g e o f e m p lo y m e n t p r a c t i c e s a s
d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f
d is c r im in a to r y p r a c t i c e s th a t had a lrea d y
been in d ep en d en tly e s t a b l is h e d .
l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I n t e r e s t o f A m ici C uriae ........................ 1
Summary o f Argument .................................... 2
ARGUMENT
I . TITLE V II , BY ITS TERMS,
PROHIBITS DISPARATE
IMPACT DISCRIMINATION
AS WELL AS DISPARATE
TREATMENT DISCRIMINATION . . . . 9
I I . THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF
TITLE V II , THE 1972
AMENDMENTS, AND THE UNIFORM
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATION
OF THE STATUTE DEMONSTRATE
THAT THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS
ARTICULATED IN GRIGGS AND ITS
PROGENY ARE CONSISTENT WITH
THE INTENT OF CONGRESS................... 13
A. In E n acting §7 03 ( a ) (2)
In 1964, C ongress
S p e c i f i c a l l y In tended To
P r o h ib it " I n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d "
D isp a ra te Im pact D iscrim
in a t io n Not M otiva ted By Any
D is cr im in a to ry Purpose . . . 13
B. In Amending T i t l e V II In 1972,
C ongress R a t i f i e d
The §7 0 3 ( a ) (2) E v id e n tia ry
Standards A r t ic u la t e d In
G r ig g s .
• • li
20
c. The E v id e n tia ry Standards Of
G riggs And I t s Progeny
Have Been U niform ly Confirm ed
By A d m in is tra tiv e
I n t e r p r e t a t io n s Of
§703 (a) ( 2 ) ................................. 26
H I . THE SEPARATE EVIDENTIARY ANALYSES
DEVELOPED BY THE COURT REFLECT THE
DISTINCT NATURE OF THE
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES CONGRESS
INTENDED TO PROSCRIBE IN
§§703 (a) (1) AND 703 (a ) (2 ) . . . 29
A. The Court Has A r t ic u la t e d
E v id e n tia ry Standards
For A n a lyzin g D isp a ra te
Treatm ent Claim s Under
S e c t io n 7 0 3 (a )(1 ) . . . . 30
1. In d iv id u a l D isp a ra te
Treatm ent . . . . 31
2. D ir e c t E vidence o f
In te n t io n a l
D is c r im in a t io n .................... 33
3. P attern o r P r a c t ic e o f
In te n t io n a l
D is cr im in a tio n . . . . 35
B. The Court Has A r t ic u la te d
S eparate E v id en tia ry
Standards For A n a lyzin g
D isp a ra te Im pact Claim s Under
S e c t io n 7 0 3 (a )(2 ) ................... 36
C. The G riggs D isp a ra te Im pact
A n a ly s is I s A nalogous To The
i l l
Team sters And Thurston
D isp a ra te Treatm ent
A n a l y s e s ............................. 44
IV. OVERRULING THE EVIDENTIARY
STANDARDS OF GRIGGS AND ITS
PROGENY WOULD BE
CONTRARY TO THE REMEDIAL
PURPOSE OF TITLE V I I ....................... 47
V. THE FIRST AND THIRD QUESTIONS
PRESENTED IN THE PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI ARE NOT PRESENTED
BY THE FACTS OF THIS C A SE ................... 54
CONCLUSION......................................................... 62
i v
T able o f A u th o r it ie s
Page
C a ses :
A lbem arle Paper Co. v . Moody,
422 U .S . 405 (1975) . . 21, 27, 38,
...................................... 41, 60
C olby v . J .C . Penney C o .,
811 F .2d 1119 (7 th C ir . 1987) . 11
C o n n e cticu t v . T e a l, 457 U .S . 440 . 6,
................................. 20, 21, 26, 38, 59
Dothard v . R aw linson , 433 U .S . 321
( 1 9 7 7 ) ........................................... 37, 41
E spinoza v . Farah Mfg. C o ., 414 U .S.
86 (1973) ........................................... 27
F ir e f ig h t e r s I n s t , f o r R a c ia l
E q u a lity v . C ity o f S t . L ou is ,
616 F.2d 350 (8 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ),
c e r t , d e n ie d . 452 U .S. 938
(1981) ............................................. 53
Franks v . Bowman T ra n sp o rta t io n C o .,
424 U .S . 747 (1976) . . . . 21, 35
Furnco C o n s tru ctio n Corp. v . W aters,
438 U .S. 567 (1978) . . . 32, 43
G eneral E le c t r i c Co. v . G i lb e r t ,
429 U .S. 141 (1976) ........................ 27
Green v . USX C o rp ., 843 F .2d 1511
(3rd C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) ............................. 59
v
G riggs v . Duke Power C o ., 401 U .S.
424 (1971) .................................. passim
Guardians A s s o c ia t io n v . C iv i l
S e r v ic e Commission,
463 U .S . 582 (1983) ........................ 42
Hazelwood S ch oo l D i s t r i c t v . U n ited
S ta te s , 433 U .S . 299 (1977) . . 36
In te r n a t io n a l B rotherhood o f
Team sters v . U nited S ta te s ,
431 U .S . 324 (1977) . . . . passim
Johnson v . R ailw ay E xpress A gency,
421 U .S . 454 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ........................... 21
L oca l 28, Sheet M etal W orkers v .
EEOC, 478 U .S .421 (1986) 25, 26, 27
L oca l 93, F ir e f ig h t e r s v . C ity o f
C lev e la n d , 478 U .S. 501 (1 9 8 6 ). .27
Los A n geles Department o f Water
& Power v . Manhart, 435 U .S .
702 (1978) ............................. 11, 34, 35
Lowe v . C ity o f M onrovia , 775 F .2d 998
(9th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ........................................38
M cDonnell D ouglas Corp. v . G reen,
411 U .S. 792 ( 1 9 7 3 ) .................... passim
N a s h v ille Gas Co. v . S a tty , 434 U .S.
136 (1 9 7 7 ) ................... 11, 12, 13, 39
New York C ity T ra n s it A u th o r ity v .
B eazer, 440 U .S. 568 (1979) . . 41
P h i l l i p s v . M artin M a rie tta C o rp .,
400 U .S. 542 (1971) . . . . 34, 35
v i
Segar v . Sm ith, 738 F .2d 1249
(D.C. C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) .................................. 59
Texas Department o f Community
A f f a i r s v . Burdine 450 U .S.
248, n. 8 (1981) . . . 31, 32, 33,
.................................................... 40, 43, 50
T i l l e r y v . P a c i f i c T e l . C o ., 34
FEP Cases 54 (N.D. C a l. 1982) . 53
Trans W orld A ir l in e s v . T hurston ,
469 U .S . I l l (1985) . . . 8 , 31, 33,
................................................ 34, 44, 45, 46
Wade v . M is s is s ip p i Coop. E xten sion
S e r v . , 615 F. Supp. 1574 (N.D.
M iss. 1 9 8 5 )................................................ 53
Wambheim v . J .C . Penney C o ., 705
F.2d 1492 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ), c e r t .
d e n ie d , 467 U .S. 1255 (1 9 8 4 ). . 11
Watson v . F ort Worth Bank and T ru st , 108
S. C t. 2777 (1988) . . . . 3, 5, 32, 38,
.............................................................. 41, 48
W ilson v . M ichigan B e ll T e l . C o .,
550 F. Supp. 1296 (E.D. M ich.
1982) ....................................................... 53
L e g is la t iv e M a te r ia ls ;
H.R. 405 ................................................................... 15
H.R. Rep. No. 88-570 ...................................... 16
H.R. Rep. No. 92-238 ................... 22, 23, 24
88 C on g ., 1 s t S ess . 144-45 (1963) . . 19
R ec. 6307 (1964)
• •Vll
110 Cong. . 19
117 Cong. R ec. 32108 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ........................ 51
117 Cong. R ec. 38402 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ........................ 51
118 Cong. R ec. 697 (1972) . . . . 22, 25
118 Cong. R ec. 7166 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ........................ 25
S. Rep. No. 88-867 (1 9 6 4 ) ............................. 17
S. Rep. No. 92-415 .................................. 22, 23
S t a t u t e s :
42 U .S .C . § 2000e-2 (a) ( 1 ) .................... passim
42 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -2 (a ) (2) . . . . passim
A d m in is tra t iv e M a te r ia ls :
29 C .F .R . § 1607 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ...................................28
29 C .F .R . § 1607.3 (1970) . . . . 28, 29
35 Fed. Reg. 12333 (1970) 28
35 Fed. Reg. 12336 (29 C .F .R .
§ 1 6 0 7 . 1 1 ) ......................................................28
43 Fed. Reg. (1978) 28
O ther A u t h o r i t ie s :
B. S c h le i & P. Grossman, Employment
D is cr im in a t io n Law. 202 (2d ed .
1 9 8 3 ) ......................................................... 52
R ose, S u b je c t iv e Employment P r a c t ic e s :
Does th e D is cr im in a to ry Im pact
A n a ly s is A p p ly ? . 25 San D iego
L .R . 63 ( 1 9 8 8 ) ........................ 14, 52
v i i i
No. 8 7 - 1 3 8 7
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
O ctob er Term, 1988
WARDS COVE PACKING COMPANY, INC. , and
CASTLE & COOKE, INC. ,
P e t i t i o n e r s .
v .
FRANK ATONIO, e t a l . ,
R esp on den ts.
On W rit o f C e r t io r a r i t o th e U nited S ta te s
Court o f A ppeals f o r th e N inth C ir c u it
BRIEF FOR THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., THE MEXICAN
AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL
FUND, AND THE PUERTO RICAN LEGAL DEFENSE
AND EDUCATION FUND AS AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING RESPONDENTS
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
A m icus NAACP L e g a l D e fe n s e and
E d u ca tion a l Fund, I n c . , i s a n a t io n a l
c i v i l r ig h t s le g a l o r g a n iz a t io n th a t has
l i t i g a t e d many ca se s on b e h a lf o f b la ck
2
p erson s seek in g v in d ic a t io n o f t h e i r c i v i l
r ig h t s , in c lu d in g G riggs v . Duke Power
C o . . 401 U .S . 424 (1 9 7 1 ). Amicus M exican
Am erican L egal D efense and E d u ca tion a l
Fund and am icus P uerto R ican L egal D efense
and E du cation Fund a re n a t io n a l c i v i l
r ig h t s o r g a n iz a t io n s th a t have b rou gh t
v a r io u s la w s u its on b e h a l f o f L a tin o
p e r s o n s s u b j e c t t o d is c r im in a t io n in
employment, e d u ca t io n , v o t in g r ig h t s and
o th e r a rea s o f p u b l ic l i f e . L e t te r s from
th e p a r t ie s co n se n tin g t o th e f i l i n g o f
t h i s b r i e f have been f i l e d w ith th e C ourt.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
A m ic i , s u p p o r t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s ,
p r in c ip a l l y ad dress th e im portan t is s u e
r a is e d by th e second q u e s t io n p re se n te d in
th e p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i — v i z . , th e
con tin u ed v i t a l i t y o f G riggs v . Duke Power
Co.
3
In Watson v . F ort Worth Bank and
T r u s t , 108 S. C t. 2 1 1 1 , 2785 (1988) (p a rt
H A ) , J u s t i c e O 'C onnor, w r it in g f o r th e
Court and c i t i n g G r ig g s , r e i t e r a t e d th a t
T i t l e V II p r o s c r ib e s n ot o n ly in t e n t io n a l ,
d i s p a r a t e trea tm en t d is c r im in a t io n but
a l s o d i s p a r a t e im p a ct d is c r im in a t io n :
"T h is C ourt has r e p e a te d ly r e a ff ir m e d th e
p r i n c i p l e t h a t some f a c i a l l y n e u tra l
employment p r a c t i c e s may v i o l a t e T i t l e V II
even in th e absence o f a dem onstrated
d i s c r im in a t o r y i n t e n t . " The W atson
o p in io n a ls o ob served th a t " th e n e ce ssa ry
prem ise o f th e d is p a r a te im pact approach
i s th a t some employment p r a c t i c e s , adopted
w it h o u t a d e l i b e r a t e l y d is c r im in a to r y
m otiv e , may in o p e ra t io n be fu n c t io n a l ly
e q u iv a le n t t o in t e n t io n a l d is c r im in a t io n ."
I d . (em phasis a d d e d ).
The p e t i t i o n e r s in t h is ca se con ced e
t h a t , " [ u ] n d e r a s t r i c t r e a d in g o f
4
G r i g g s . " o n c e t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s
e s t a b l i s h e d a prim a f a c i e c a s e o f
d is p a r a te im pact th e em ployer "must come
f o r w a r d w it h w h a t a m ou n ts t o an
a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e o f b u s i n e s s
n e c e s s i t y . " B r ie f f o r P e t i t io n e r s a t 42
( c i t a t i o n and fo o t n o t e o m it t e d ) . The
S o l i c i t o r G en era l, how ever, d i s t o r t s th e
language o f Watson t o argue th a t G r ig g s '
burden o f p r o o f stan dards a re " [b ja s e d on
t h e a s s u m p t io n t h a t c e r t a i n o t h e r
e x c lu s io n a r y p r a c t i c e s a re 'f u n c t i o n a l l y
e q u i v a l e n t t o i n t e n t i o n a l
d i s c r im in a t i o n . '" B r ie f f o r th e U nited
S t a t e s as Am icus C uriae a t 13. The
S o l i c i t o r G eneral then goes on t o argue
th a t , once th e p l a i n t i f f has e s t a b l is h e d a
prim a f a c i e ca se o f d is p a r a te im pact
d is c r im in a t io n , th e e m p lo y e r 's burden o f
dem on stratin g b u s in e ss n e c e s s i t y sh ou ld be
r e v is e d t o conform t o th e e m p lo y e r 's
5
minim al burden o f p ro d u c t io n im posed under
M cDonnell D ouglas C oro, v . G reen . 411 U .S.
792 (1 9 7 3 ) , in i n d iv id u a l d i s p a r a t e
trea tm en t c a s e s . Id . a t 27 ("N oth in g
about d is p a r a te im pact ca s e s j u s t i f i e s a
d ep a rtu re from th e model f o r l i t i g a t i n g
d is p a r a t e trea tm en t c a s e s " ) . Compare
W atson, 108 S. C t. a t 2787-2791 (p a r ts I I
C&D) (O 'C onnor, J . ) . 1
The S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l 's argument
c o n f l i c t s w ith th e la n g u a g e o f th e
s t a t u t e , i t s l e g i s l a t i v e h is t o r y and
c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
in t e r p r e t a t io n s , th e p r io r d e c is io n s o f
l l n W atson. th e S o l i c i t o r G eneral
a r g u e d t h a t s u b j e c t i v e e m p lo y m e n t
p r a c t i c e s co u ld o n ly be an a lyzed under an
in t e n t io n a l d is c r im in a t io n stan d a rd . See
108 S. C t. a t 2786. The Court r e je c t e d
th e argum ent. In th e p re se n t c a s e , th e
S o l i c i t o r G eneral seek s t o a ccom p lish
in d i r e c t ly — through th e su b te r fu g e o f
m od ify in g d is p a r a te im pact stan d ard s o f
p r o o f t o conform t o in d iv id u a l d is p a r a te
trea tm en t stan dards — what th e Court
d i r e c t l y r e je c t e d in W atson.
6
t h i s C ourt, and th e rem ed ia l pu rp ose o f
T i t l e V II .
1 . "A d i s p a r a t e im p a ct c la im
r e f l e c t s th e language o f §7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) , "
C o n n e cticu t v . T e a l . 457 U .S . 440, 448
(1982) , w hich p r o s c r ib e s p r a c t i c e s th a t
"d e p r iv e o r ten d t o d e p r iv e any in d iv id u a l
o f employment o p p o r t u n it ie s ." 42 U .S .C .
§2 0 0 0 e -2 (a ) (2) . The in d iv id u a l d is p a r a te
trea tm en t a n a ly s is , on th e o th e r hand, i s
one o f s e v e r a l e v id e n t ia r y m odels f o r
a n a ly z in g v i o la t i o n s o f § 7 0 3 ( a ) ( l ) , 42
U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -2 (a ) (1) .
2 . The l e g i s l a t i v e h is t o r y o f T i t l e
V I I 7 s enactm ent in 1964, and o f i t s
amendment in 1972, b oth undermine th e
S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l 's argum ent. In 1964,
C ongress made unm istakably c l e a r th a t i t
in te n d e d t o p r o h ib i t b oth in t e n t io n a l
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and d i s p a r a t e im p a ct
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . P u r p o s e f u l , o v e r t
7
d is c r im in a t io n was n ot regard ed as a
paradigm ; C ongress e x p r e s s ly d e c la r e d th a t
T i t l e V II reach ed beyond o v e r t p r a c t i c e s .
In 1972, C ongress s p e c i f i c a l l y r a t i f i e d
G riggs and i t s e v id e n t ia r y stan d ard s f o r
d is p a r a te im pact c a s e s . Contemporaneous
a d m in is tr a t iv e in t e r p r e t a t io n s o f T i t l e
V I I , in c lu d in g th o se o f th e Department o f
J u s t i c e and th e EEOC, have u n ifo rm ly
a p p l i e d th e G r ig g s d i s p a r a t e im pact
a n a ly s is t o a l l s e l e c t i o n p roced u res w ith
an a d v e r s e im p a c t , and th e y have
s e p a r a te ly p r o h ib it e d d is p a r a te trea tm en t.
3 . B ased on th e language and
l e g i s l a t i v e h is t o r y o f §7 0 3 (a ) , th e Court
h a s d e v e l o p e d s e p a r a t e e v i d e n t i a r y
a n a l y s e s t h a t r e c o g n i z e th e b a s i c
d i f f e r e n c e s between d is p a r a te treatm en t
and d is p a r a te im pact d is c r im in a t io n . The
in d iv id u a l d is p a ra te treatm en t a n a ly s is o f
M cDonnell D ouglas se rv e s d i f f e r e n t ends
8
than th o se served by th e d is p a r a te im pact
a n a ly s is o f G r ig g s ; th e s ta g e s o f th e two
e v id e n t ia r y m odels a re s p e c i f i c t o each
a n a ly s is and are in no way com parable .
The more a p p ro p r ia te a n a logy f o r th e
e m p lo y e r 's burden in a d is p a r a te im pact
ca se — i f an an a logy i s n e ce s s a r y —
would be th e e m p lo y e r 's burden in c l a s s -
based d is p a r a te treatm en t c a s e s , such as
In te r n a t io n a l B rotherhood o f Team sters v .
U nited S t a t e s . 431 U .S. 324 (1 9 7 7 ), and
Trans W orld A ir l in e s v . T h u rston . 469 U .S .
I l l (1 9 8 5 ).
4 . The S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l 's th e o r y ,
i f a c ce p te d , would f r u s t r a t e th e rem ed ia l
pu rp ose o f T i t l e V II by o v e r r u lin g G riggs
and e f f e c t i v e l y r e p e a lin g §703 (a) ( 2 ) ' s
p r o h ib i t io n o f a r b it r a r y p r a c t i c e s th a t
have th e e f f e c t o f d e p r iv in g m in o r i t ie s o r
women o f employment o p p o r t u n it ie s .
9
Am ici a ls o subm it th a t th e f i r s t and
t h ir d q u e s t io n s p resen ted in th e p e t i t i o n
f o r c e r t i o r a r i a re n ot a c t u a l ly p resen ted
by th e fa c t s o f t h i s c a s e , and th a t th e
C ourt sh ou ld n ot attem pt t o r e s o lv e th o se
q u e s t io n s on t h i s r e c o r d .
ARGUMENT
I . TITLE V II , BY ITS TERMS, PROHIBITS
DISPARATE IMPACT DISCRIMINATION AS
WELL AS DISPARATE TREATMENT
DISCRIMINATION.
The in d iv id u a l d is p a r a te trea tm en t
model o f M cDonnell D ou g la s . which th e
S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l w o u l d e x te n d t o
d is p a r a te im pact c a s e s , was d ev e lop ed t o
a n a l y z e c l a i m s o f i n t e n t i o n a l
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a g a i n s t i n d i v i d u a l
p l a i n t i f f s under § 7 0 3 ( a ) ( l ) o f T i t l e V II .
See M cDonnell D ou g la s . 411 U.S. a t 676 -7 7 .
"A d is p a r a te im pact c la im ," on th e o th e r
h a n d , " r e f l e c t s t h e l a n g u a g e o f
§ 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) . " T e a l . 457 U.S. a t 448.
10
The two su bp a rts o f § 7 0 3 (a) s t a t e :
I t s h a l l b e an u n l a w f u l
e m p l o y m e n t p r a c t i c e f o r an
em ployer:
1. t o f a i l o r r e fu s e t o h ir e
o r t o d is ch a rg e any in d iv id u a l , o r
o th e rw ise t o d is c r im in a te a g a in s t
any in d iv id u a l w ith r e s p e c t t o h is
com pen sation , term s, c o n d it io n s ,
o r p r i v i l e g e s o f em p loym en t,
b eca u se o f such in d iv id u a l 's r a c e ,
c o l o r , r e l i g i o n , s e x , o r n a t io n a l
o r i g in ; o r
2 . t o l im i t , s e g r e g a te , o r
c l a s s i f y h i s e m p l o y e e s o r
a p p lic a n ts f o r employment in any
way which would d e p r iv e o r ten d t o
d e p r i v e a n y i n d i v i d u a l o f
e m p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s o r
o t h e r w is e a d v e rs e ly a f f e c t h is
s ta tu s as an em ployee, b eca u se o f
su ch in d iv id u a l 's r a c e , c o l o r ,
r e l i g i o n , s e x , o r n a t io n a l o r ig in .
42 U.S.C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( a ) . T h is s t a t u t o r y
la n g u a g e e s t a b l i s h e s a co m p re h e n s iv e
f r a m e w o r k e m b r a c i n g b o t h fo rm s o f
em ploym ent d i s c r im in a t io n : d is p a r a te
trea tm en t and d is p a r a te im pact.
The Court has a p p lie d § 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) in a
v a r i e t y o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s in v o lv in g
11
in t e n t io n a l d is c r im in a t io n . See e . g . ,
M cDonnell Douglas ( in d iv id u a l d is p a r a te
t r e a t m e n t )? Los A ngeles Department o f
Water & Power v . M anhart. 435 U.S. 702
(1978) ( d i r e c t ev id en ce o f a p o l i c y o f
d is p a r a te t r e a tm e n t ) ; Team sters (p a tte rn
o r p r a c t i c e o f d is p a r a te t r e a tm e n t ) . The
C o u r t , h o w e v e r , has " n o t d e c i d e [ d ]
w hether, when co n fro n te d by a f a c i a l l y
n e u tra l p la n , i t i s n e ce ssa ry t o p rove
i n t e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a prim a f a c i e
v i o l a t i o n o f § 7 03 ( a ) ( 1 ) . " N a s h v ille Gas
Co. V. S a t t v . 434 U.S. 136, 144 ( 1 9 7 7 ) . 2
The se p a ra te and d i s t i n c t o b je c t iv e
o f C ongress in e n a ctin g § 7 0 3 ( a ) (2) " i s
p la in from th e language o f th e s t a t u t e . "
2S ev era l low er c o u r ts have h e ld th a t
d is p a r a te im pact ch a lle n g e s may a ls o be
b rou gh t under §703 ( a ) ( l ) . S e e , e . g . ,
C olbv v . J .C . Penney Co. . 811 F.2d 1119,
1127 (7 th C ir . 1987) ; Wambheim v . J .C.
Penney Co . , 705 F. 2d 1492, 1494 (9 th C ir .
1983) , c e r t , d e n ie d . 467 U.S. 1255 (1984) .
G riacrs. 401 U.S. a t 429. S e c t io n
703 ( a ) ( 2 ) "sp ea k s , n o t in term s o f jo b s
a n d p r o m o t i o n s , b u t i n t e r m s o f
l im i t a t io n s and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s th a t would
d e p r iv e any in d iv id u a l o f employment
o p p o r t u n it ie s . " T e a l, 457 U.S. a t 449
( o r ig in a l em p h a s is ).
A d i s p a r a t e im p a c t c la im
r e f l e c t s t h e l a n g u a g e o f
§ 7 0 3 ( a ) (2) and C on g ress ' b a s ic
o b j e c t i v e s i n e n a c t i n g t h a t
s t a t u t e : " t o a ch ie v e e q u a l i t y o f
e m p l o y m e n t o p p o r t u n i t i e s and
remove b a r r ie r s th a t have op era ted
in t h e p a s t t o f a v o r an
i d e n t i f i a b l e g r o u p o f w h ite
em ployees o v e r o th e r e m p lo y e e s ."
r G r i g g s .1 401 U.S. a t 429-430
(em phasis a d d e d ).
I d . ( o r ig in a l em p h a sis ). See S a t t v . 434
U. S . a t 141 ( r u l in g th a t d e n ia l o f
pregnancy b e n e f i t s i s p e r m is s ib le under
§703 ( a ) ( 1 ) "d oes n ot a llo w us t o read
§ 7 0 3 ( a ) (2) t o perm it an em ployer t o burden
fem ale em ployees in such a way as t o
d e p r i v e t h e m o f e m p l o y m e n t
12
o p p o r t u n i t i e s " ) .
13
"P r o o f o f d is c r im in a to r y m otive . . .
i s n ot r e q u ir e d ," T eam sters . 431 U.S. a t
335 n .1 5 , by th e term s o f § 7 03 ( a ) ( 2 ) . As
t h e n -J u s t ic e R ehnquist put i t , "G rig gs
h e ld th a t a v i o la t i o n o f §703 (a) (2) can be
e s t a b lis h e d by p r o o f o f a d is c r im in a to r y
e f f e c t . " S a t t v , 434 U.S. a t 144.
I I . THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TITLE V II ,
THE 1972 AMENDMENTS, AND THE
UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRE
TATION OF THE STATUTE DEMONSTRATE
THAT THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS
ARTICULATED IN GRIGGS AND ITS PROGENY
ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF
CONGRESS.
A. In E nacting § 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) In 1964,
C ongress S p e c i f i c a l l y In tended
To P r o h ib it " I n s t i t u t io n a l i z e d "
D isp a ra te Im pact D is cr im in a tio n
N o t M o t i v a t e d By Any
D iscr im in a to ry P urpose.
The 1964 l e g i s l a t i v e h is t o r y con firm s
t h is C o u r t 's assessm ent o f T i t l e V II seven
y ea rs l a t e r in G r ig g s . 401 U.S. a t 429 -3 0 ,
th a t : "The o b je c t iv e o f C ongress in th e
enactm ent o f T i t l e V II was t o
14
a c h i e v e e q u a l i t y o f e m p l o y m e n t
o p p o r tu n it ie s and remove b a r r ie r s th a t
have op era ted in th e p a s t t o fa v o r an
id e n t i f i a b l e group o f w h ite em ployees o v e r
o th e r em p loyees , " w hether th o s e b a r r ie r s
w ere e r e c te d by in t e n t io n a l , r a c i a l l y
m otiv a ted d is c r im in a t io n o r by u n ju s t i f i e d
p r a c t i c e s w ith a d i s p a r a t e im p a c t .3
C ongress d id n ot see d is p a r a te im pact
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a s a n o t h e r form o f
d is p a r a te trea tm en t d is c r im in a t io n , but
ra th e r as a sep a ra te e v i l w hich T i t l e V II
s e p a r a te ly a d d ressed .
The fo re ru n n e r o f § 7 0 3 ( a ) (2) was
c o n t a in e d in House and Senate b i l l s
in tro d u ce d in th e 88th C on gress, from
3See R o s e , S u b j e c t i v e Employment
P r a c t ic e s : Does th e D is cr im in a to ry Im pact
A n a ly s is A pply? . 25 San D iego L.R. 63, 73-
81 (1988) (au th or was c h i e f o f th e s e c t io n
o f th e Department o f J u s t i c e 's C iv i l
R i g h t s D i v i s i o n r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
en forcem en t o f T i t l e V I I ) .
15
w hich T i t l e V II o f th e omnibus C iv i l
R ig h ts A ct o f 1964 e v e n tu a lly em erged.
S e c t io n 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) o f H.R. 405, w hich was
fa v o r a b ly r e p o r te d in H.R. Rep. No. 8 8 -
570 (1963 ) , p r o h ib it e d th e l im i t a t io n ,
s e g r e g a t i o n , o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f
em ployees " in any way w hich would d e p r iv e
o r t e n d t o d e p r iv e any p e r s o n o f
em ploym ent o p p o r t u n i t i e s o r o th e rw ise
a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t h i s s t a t u s as an
e m p l o y e e " b e c a u s e o f p r o h i b i t e d
d is c r im in a t io n . Id . a t 8.
The House Committee r e p o r te d th a t
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n in em ploym ent was "a
p e rv a s iv e p r a c t i c e " th rou gh ou t th e cou n try
and th a t i t "p erm eate [d ] th e n a t io n a l
s o c ia l f a b r i c — N orth, South , East and
W est." Id . a t 2.
. . . Job d is c r im in a t io n i s
e x ta n t in a lm ost ev ery area o f
employment and in ev ery area o f
th e co u n try . I t ranges in d eg rees
from p a ten t a b s o lu te r e j e c t i o n t o
more s u b t le form s o f in v id io u s
16
d i s t in c t i o n s . Most fr e q u e n t ly , i t
m a n ife s ts i t s e l f th rough r e le g a
t io n t o " t r a d i t i o n a l " p o s i t i o n s
a n d t h r o u g h d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
p rom otion a l p r a c t i c e s .
I d . The House r e p o r t a t t r ib u t e d h ig h
m in o r ity unemployment and underem ploym ent
in p a r t t o such d is c r im in a to r y p r a c t i c e s .
I d . Opponents o f th e b i l l a tta ck e d th e
b rea d th o f th e p r o h i b i t i o n .4 However,
w ith th e a d d it io n o f sex as one o f th e
p r o h ib it e d b ases f o r u n law fu l employment
p r a c t i c e s , H.R. 405 passed w ith ou t any
amendment o f t h is s u b s ta n t iv e p r o v is io n .
In th e Senate, language s im ila r t o
§ 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) appeared in S. 1937, a b i l l
in tro d u ce d by S en ator Humphrey, who was
l a t e r th e f l o o r manager f o r th e omnibus
4H.R. Rep. No.
(m in o r ity view o f Reps.
88-570 a t 110-11
P o l l and Cram es.)
17
C iv i l R ig h ts A ct o f 1 9 6 4 . 5 The b i l l was
r e p o r te d fa v o r a b ly ou t o f th e Senate Labor
Committee on February 4 , 19 64. S. Rep.
No. 88-867 (1964) . S e c t io n 4(a) o f S.
1937 made u n law fu l th e d is c r im in a to r y
d e n ia l o f "eq u a l employment o p p o r t u n it y ,"
in c lu d in g any p r a c t i c e w hich " r e s u l t s o r
ten d s t o r e s u l t in m a te r ia l d isad va n ta ge
o r im ped im en t t o any i n d iv id u a l in
o b ta in in g employment o r th e in c id e n ts o f
employment f o r which he i s o th erw ise
q u a l i f i e d . " Id . a t 24. The Senate
r e p o r t , w r it te n by S en ator C lark , who was
l a t e r th e b ip a r t is a n f l o o r le a d e r f o r
T i t l e V I I , e x p la in e d th a t :
O v e rt o r c o v e r t d is c r im i
n a t o r y s e l e c t i o n d e v i c e s ,
i n t e n t i o n a l o r u n i n t e n t i o n a l ,
g e n e r a l ly p r e v a i l th rou gh ou t th e
m ajor p a r t o f th e w h ite econom ic
community. D e lib e r a te p roced u res
5S en a tors C lark and Case, who were
l a t e r th e b ip a r t is a n Senate f l o o r le a d e rs
f o r T i t l e V II , were c o -s p o n s o r s .
18
o p e ra te to g e th e r w ith w id esp read
b u i l t - i n a d m in is tr a t iv e p r o c e s s e s
through w hich nonw hite a p p lic a n ts
are a u to m a t ica lly ex c lu d ed from
jo b o p p o r t u n it ie s . Channels f o r
jo b re cru itm en t may be t r a d i t i o n
a l l y d ir e c t e d t o s o u rce s w hich by
t h e i r n a tu re do n o t in c lu d e
n o n w h i t e s ; t r a i n e e s may b e
s e le c t e d from departm ents where
N e g r o e s h a v e n e v e r w o r k e d ;
p rom otion s may be based upon jo b
e x p e r ie n c e w h ich N egroes have
n ever had.
As S e c re ta ry o f Labor W irtz
s ta te d in h is te s tim on y b e fo r e th e
com m ittee:
D is c r im in a t io n has becom e,
f u r t h e r m o r e , i n s t i t u t i o n
a l i z e d so th a t i t o b ta in s
tod a y in some o r g a n iz a t io n s
and p r a c t i c e s and a rea s as
t h e p r o d u c t o f i n e r t i a ,
p re se rv e d by form s and h a b its
which can b e s t be broken from
th e o u t s id e .
I d . a t 5 . A ccord in g t o th e Com m ittee, S.
1937 d e fin e d "eq u a l employment o p p o r tu n ity
in broad term s t o in c lu d e a w ide range o f
i n c i d e n t s a n d f a c i l i t i e s , a n d
e n c o m p a s s e [ d ] a l l a s p e c t s o f
d is c r im in a t io n in employment b eca u se o f
r a c e , c o l o r , r e l i g i o n ,t c o l o r , o r n a t i o n a l
19
o r i g i n . " Id . a t 10. The r e p o r t d e c la r e d
t h a t t h e s u b s t a n t iv e p r o v i s i o n was
"d e s ig n e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o rea ch in t o a l l
o f t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d a r e a s and
r e c e s s e s o f d is c r im in a t io n , in c lu d in g th e
s o - c a l l e d b u i l t - i n p r a c t i c e s p reserv ed
through form , h a b it o r i n e r t i a . " Id . a t
1 1 . S e e a l s o . H e a r in g s on E qual
E m p l o y m e n t O p p o r t u n i t y B e f o r e t h e
Subcom m ittee on Employment o f th e Senate
Committee on Labor and P u b lic W e lfa re ,
8 8 t h C o n g . , 1 s t S e s s . 144-45 (1963)
(rem arks o f Sen. Humphrey).
S en ator Humphrey, as p r in c ip a l f l o o r
manager, in tro d u ce d th e omnibus b i l l th a t
co n ta in e d T i t l e V II , H. 7512, on th e f l o o r
o f th e Senate on March 30, 1964. 110
Cong. R ec. 6307. W hile th e omnibus b i l l
op ted f o r c o u r t en forcem en t as opposed t o
t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c e a s e - a n d - d e s i s t
a u th o r ity p rop osed in th e Labor Committee
20
b i l l , th e s u b s ta n t iv e fo c u s o f § 7 0 3 ( a ) (2)
— th e broad p r o h ib i t io n o f p r a c t i c e s
r e s u lt in g in th e d e n ia l o f employment
o p p o r tu n it ie s — rem ained th e same. In
e x p la in in g th e b i l l , S en a tor Humphrey
s ta te d th a t , " a t th e p re s e n t tim e N egroes
and members o f o th e r m in o r ity grou ps do
n o t have an equ a l chance t o be h ir e d , t o
be prom oted , and t o be g iv e n th e m ost
d e s ir a b le assign m en ts. . . . The cru x o f
t h e p r o b l e m i s t o open em ploym ent
o p p o r tu n it ie s f o r N egroes in o c c u p a t io n s
w hich have been t r a d i t i o n a l l y c lo s e d t o
them ." Id . a t 6547, 6548.
The language o f § 7 0 3 ( a ) (2) p a ssed
b oth houses in t a c t .
B. In Amending T i t l e V II In 1972,
C ongress R a t i f i e d The § 7 0 3 ( a ) (2)
E v i d e n t i a r y S t a n d a r d s
A r t ic u la t e d In G r ig g s .
As th e Court con c lu d ed in T e a l .
" [ t ] h e l e g i s l a t i v e h is t o r y o f th e 1972
21
amendments t o T i t l e V II . . . d em on strates
th a t C ongress r e c o g n iz e d and en dorsed th e
d is p a r a te im pact a n a ly s is em ployed by th e
C ourt in G r ig g s ." 457 U.S. a t 447 n . 8 . 6
The C ourt e x p la in e d th a t " [b ]o t h th e House
and Senate r e p o r t s c i t e d G riggs w ith
a p p ro v a l, th e Senate r e p o r t n o t in g th a t :
'Employment d is c r im in a t io n as
view ed tod ay i s a . . . com plex
and p e rv a s iv e phenomenon. E xperts
6The l e g i s l a t i v e h is t o r y o f th e 1972
amendments i s r e le v a n t h ere becau se th o se
amendments extended th e p r o t e c t io n o f
§ 7 0 3 ( a ) (2) t o "a p p lic a n ts f o r employment"
(such as th e resp on d en ts in th e p re se n t
ca se ) as w e ll as em ployees, and becau se
th e amendments extended th e cov era g e o f
T i t l e V II t o fe d e r a l and s t a t e em ployees.
§ § 7 0 1 ( a ) , ( b ) , and (e) , 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-
( a ) , ( b ) , and ( e ) ; §717, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-
16. See T e a l . 457 U.S. a t 447 n . 8 ;
Franks v . Bowman T ra n sp o rta t io n C o. 424
U.S. 747, 764 n .21 ( 19 76 ) ; see a l s o , i d .
a t 796 n .18 (P o w e ll, J . , c o n cu rr in g in
p a r t and d is s e n t in g in p a r t ) ; A lb em a rle .
422 U.S. a t 4 2 0 -2 1 ; Johnson v . R ailw ay
E xpress A gency . 421 U.S. 454, 459 (1975) .
Compare T eam sters . 431 U.S. a t 354 n.39
(1972 l e g i s l a t i v e h is t o r y e n t i t l e d t o
l i t t l e i f any w e i g h t i n c o n s t r u in g
§ 7 0 3 ( h ) , which was u n a ffe c te d by 1972
am endm ents).
22
f a m i l i a r w ith th e s u b je c t now
g e n e r a l ly d e s c r ib e th e problem in
term s o f "system s" and " e f f e c t s "
r a t h e r than sim ply in t e n t io n a l
w ron gs. ' "
I d . (q u o tin g S. Rep. No. 92-415 a t 5
( 1 9 7 1 ) ) . See a ls o H.R. Rep. No. 92-238 a t
8 ( 19 71 ) .
C ongress in 1972 r e i t e r a t e d in even
s t r o n g e r term s than in 1964 th a t T i t l e V II
p r o h ib it e d d is p a r a te im pact d is c r im in a t io n
as w e ll as d is p a r a te trea tm en t d i s c r im i
n a t io n . Indeed , c o n g r e s s io n a l r e c o g n it io n
th a t " i n s t i t u t i o n a l " d is c r im in a t io n was an
e v i l d i f f e r e n t f r o m d i s c r i m i n a t i o n
m otiv a ted by i l l w i l l o r animus was th e
i m p e t u s f o r s e v e r a l o f t h e m o re
s i g n i f i c a n t a m e n d m e n t s . 7 " [ W J h e r e
7S en ator Dom inick, who sp on sored th e
Nixon A d m in is t r a t io n 's c o u r t -e n fo r c e m e n t
approach as an a l t e r n a t iv e t o th e p ro p o s a l
t o g iv e EEOC c e a s e -a n d -d e s is t pow ers,
s t a t e d t h a t " ' m o s t d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
t r e a t m e n t i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l ; s u b t l e
p r a c t i c e s th a t le a v e m in o r i t ie s a t a
d is a d v a n t a g e . '" 118 Cong. R ec. 697 (1972)
(q u o tin g Wall__ S tr e e t Jou rn a l a r t i c l e ) .
23
d is c r im in a t io n i s i n s t i t u t i o n a l , ra th e r
than m erely a m atter o f bad f a i t h , . . .
c o r r e c t iv e m easures appear t o be u rg e n t ly
r e q u ir e d ." S. Rep. No. 92-415 a t 1 4 . * 8
See a ls o 118 Cong. R ec. 944-45 (1972)
(rem arks o f Sen. Spong) ("a s i g n i f i c a n t
p a r t o f th e problem tod a y i s n ot th e
s im p le , w i l l f u l a c t o f some em ployer but
r a t h e r th e e f f e c t o f lo n g -e s t a b l is h e d
p r a c t i c e s o r system s in w hich th e re may be
n o i n t e n t t o d i s c r im in a t e o r even
know ledge th a t such i s th e e f f e c t " ) .
8C ongress in 1972 extended T i t l e V II
t o fe d e r a l em ployees, who p r e v io u s ly co u ld
in v o k e o n l y C i v i l S e r v ic e Commission
a d m in is tr a t iv e rem ed ies . T h is change was
n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e th e Commission had
e r r o n e o u s ly "assum e[d] th a t employment
d is c r im in a t io n in th e F ed era l Government
i s s o l e l y a m atter o f m a lic io u s in te n t on
th e p a r t o f in d iv id u a ls ," and "h a [d ] n ot
f u l l y r e c o g n iz e d th a t th e g e n e ra l r u le s
and p roced u res th a t i t had prom ulgated may
in th em selves c o n s t i t u t e sy s tem ic b a r r ie r s
t o m in o r it ie s and women." S. Rep. No. 9 2 -
415 a t 14? see a ls o , H.R. Rep. No. 92-238
a t 24. T i t l e V II was extended t o s t a t e
em ployees f o r s im ila r re a so n s . See H.R.
R ep . No. 9 2 - 2 3 8 a t 17 ( "w id e s p r e a d
d is c r im in a t io n a g a in s t m in o r i t ie s e x i s t s
in s t a t e and l o c a l governm ent employment
and . . . th e e x i s t e n c e o f t h i s
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s p erp etu a ted by th e
p re se n ce o f both in s t i t u t i o n a l and o v e r t
d is c r im in a to r y p r a c t i c e s " ) .
24
I n r a t i f y i n g G r i g g s . C o n g r e s s
u n d e r s t o o d t h a t s u c h i n s t i t u t i o n a l
p r a c t i c e s c o u ld be j u s t i f i e d o n ly i f th e
employer d is ch a rg e d a heavy burden o f
showing " o v e r r i d i n g " b u s in e s s n e c e s s i t y .
The House r e p o r t summarized G riggs as
h o ld in g th a t "employment t e s t s , even i f
v a l i d on t h e i r f a c e and a p p l i e d in a non-
d i s c r im in a t o r y manner, were i n v a l i d i f
t h e y t e n d e d t o d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t
m i n o r i t i e s and th e company c o u ld n o t show
an o v e r r i d i n g re a s o n why t e s t s were
n e c e s s a r y . " H.R. Rep. No. 92-238 a t 21
(emphasis a d d ed ) ; see a l s o i d . a t 22 ( " I f
th e use o f th e t e s t a c t s t o m ainta in
e x i s t i n g o r p a s t d i s c r im in a t o r y im balances
in th e j o b , o r tends t o d i s c r im in a t e
a g a in s t a p p l i c a n t s on the b a s i s o f r a c e ,
c o l o r , r e l i g i o n , sex o r n a t io n a l o r i g i n ,
t h e employer must show an o v e r r id in g
b u s in e s s n e c e s s i t y t o j u s t i f y use o f th e
25
t e s t " ) ; i d . a t 8 ( " s h o w in g o f an
o v e r r id in g b u s in e ss n e c e s s i t y f o r th e use
o f such a c t i o n " ) . ^
F i n a l l y , in language " t h a t c o u ld
h a rd ly be more e x p l i c i t , " Franks. 424
U.S. a t 764 n .2 1 , th e s e c t i o n - b y - s e c t i o n
a n a l y s e s s u b m i t t e d t o b o t h h o u s e s
" c o n f i r m [e d ] C on gress ' r e s o l v e t o a c c e p t
p r e v a i l i n g j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
re g a rd in g th e s cop e o f T i t l e V I I . " L oca l
28, Sheet Metal Workers v . EEOC. 478 U.S.
421, 470 (1 9 8 6 ) . See 118 Cong. Rec. 7166,
7564 (1 9 7 2 ) ( " p r e s e n t c a s e law as
d eve lop ed by th e c o u r t s would co n t in u e t o
^ C o n g re ss d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e
e m p lo y e r 's burden t o be m erely th a t o f
a r t i c u l a t i n g a l e g i t i m a t e reason f o r
engaging in p r a c t i c e s th a t s y s t e m a t i c a l l y
e x c l u d e d m i n o r i t i e s o r women. Id .
Senator Dominick, f o r in s t a n c e , e x p la in e d
th a t under G r ig g s , " 'em ploym ent t e s t s ,
even i f f a i r l y a p p l i e d are i n v a l i d i f they
have a d i s c r im in a t o r y e f f e c t and c a n ' t be
j u s t i f i e d on t h e b a s i s o f b u s i n e s s
n e c e s s i t y . ' " 118 Cong. Rec. 697 (1972)
( c i t a t i o n om itted ) (emphasis a d d e d ) .
26
govern th e a p p l i c a b i l i t y and c o n s t r u c t i o n
o f T i t l e V I I " ) . As th e Court co n c lu d e d in
T e a l , Congress made an e x p l i c i t s tatem ent
" t h a t in any area n o t ad dressed by th e
amendments, p r e s e n t ca s e law — which as
Congress had a lr e a d y r e c o g n iz e d in c lu d e d
our then r e c e n t d e c i s i o n in G riggs — was
in ten ded t o co n t in u e t o g o v e r n . " 457 U.S.
a t 447 n .8 .
C. The E v id e n t ia r y Standards Of
G riggs And I t s Progeny Have Been
U n i f o r m l y C o n f i r m e d By
A d m in is t ra t iv e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s
Of §7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) .
T h e C o u r t ' s c o n s t r u c t i o n o f
§7 0 3 ( a ) (2) in G riggs i s " co n f irm e d by th e
contemporaneous i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f . . .
bo th th e J u s t i c e Department and th e EEOC,
th e two f e d e r a l a g e n c ie s charged w ith
e n f o r c e m e n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ] . " L oca l 2 8 .
478 U.S. a t 465 -66 . The en forcem ent
a g e n c i e s ' a d m in is t r a t iv e g u i d e l i n e s on
t h i s s u b j e c t have been co n s tru e d as
27
" e x p r e s s [ in g ] t h e w i l l o f C o n g re s s . "
G r ig g s , 401 U.S. a t 434; see A lb e m a r le ,
422 U.S. a t 4 3 1 .10
In g u i d e l in e s i n i t i a l l y adopted in
1966 and e la b o r a t e d in 1970, see G r ig g s .
401 U.S. a t 434 n .9 , th e EEOC in t e r p r e t e d
§703 (a) (2) as p r o h i b i t i n g th e use o f any
t e s t o r o t h e r s e l e c t i o n te ch n ig u e th a t was
d i s c r im in a t o r y in o p e r a t io n u n le s s the
e m p l o y e r c o u l d e s t a b l i s h j o b
r e l a t e d n e s s . 11 These g u i d e l i n e s , as
1 0 B e c a u s e t h e g u i d e l i n e s a r e
c o n s i s t e n t w ith th e s t a t u t o r y language and
t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y , t h e y a r e
" e n t i t l e d t o g r e a t d e f e r e n c e . " A lbem arle ,
422 U.S. a t 431; G r ig g s . 401 U.S. a t 433-
34; see a l s o L oca l 2 8 . 478 U.S. a t 465-
66; L oca l 93, F i r e f i g h t e r s v . C ity o f
C le v e la n d . 478 U.S. 501,518 (1 9 8 6 ) . C f .
General E l e c t r i c Co. v . G i l b e r t . 429 U.S.
125, 141-45 ( 1 9 7 6 ) (EEOC g u i d e l i n e s on sex
d i s c r im in a t i o n n o t f o l l o w e d because th ey
c o n t r a d i c t e d a g e n c y 's e a r l i e r p o s i t i o n s
and were in c o n s i s t e n t w ith C on gress ' p la in
in t e n t ) ; Espinoza v . Farah Mfg, Co. , 414
U.S. 86, 93-94 (1 9 7 3 ) .
1 1 EEOC G u i d e l i n e s on E m p lo y e e
S e l e c t i o n P roced u res , 35 Fed. Reg. 12333,
12334 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , c o d i f i e d a t 29 C .F .R .
28
r e v i s e d by the EEOC in 1970 p r i o r t o th e
C o u r t ' s 1971 d e c i s i o n in G r i g g s . t r e a t e d
d i s p a r a t e impact d i s c r im in a t i o n as an e v i l
s e p a ra te from d is p a r a t e tre a tm e n t , and
th ey in t e r p r e t e d T i t l e VII as p r o h i b i t i n g
bo th forms o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .
The p r i n c i p l e o f d i s p a r a t e o r
u n e q u a l t r e a t m e n t m u s t b e
d i s t in g u i s h e d from th e c o n c e p t s o f
v a l i d a t i o n . A t e s t o r o t h e r
e m p lo y e e s e l e c t i o n s t a n d a r d -
even though v a l i d a t e d a g a in s t j o b
perform ance in a ccord a n ce w ith th e
g u i d e l i n e s in t h i s p a r t — cannot
be imposed upon any in d iv id u a l o r
c l a s s p r o t e c t e d by T i t l e VII where
o t h e r em ployees , a p p l i c a n t s o r
members have n o t been s u b j e c t t o
th a t standard .
35 F e d . R eg . a t 12336 (29 C .F .R .
§ 1 6 0 7 . 1 1 ) . 12
§ § 1 6 0 7 .3 , 1607.13 (1970) ( e la b o r a t in g EEOC
G u i d e l i n e s o n E m p lo y m e n t T e s t i n g
P roced u res , r e p r in t e d in CCH Empl. P rac .
Guide ^[16,904 (1967) ) .
12The Uniform G u id e l in e s on Employee
S e l e c t i o n P roced u res , 43 Fed. Reg. 38290
(1 9 7 8 ) , c o d i f i e d a t 29 C .F .R . §1607 (1986)
— which superseded the EEOC G u id e l in e s
and w ere a d o p t e d by t h e EEOC, th e
Department o f J u s t i c e , and o t h e r a g e n c ie s
29
III. THE SEPARATE EVIDENTIARY ANALYSES
DEVELOPED BY THE COURT REFLECT THE
DISTINCT NATURE OF THE DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES CONGRESS INTENDED TO PRO
SCRIBE IN | §§703(a) (1) AND 703(a)(2).
Nothing on th e f a c e o f th e s t a t u t e o r
in i t s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y su pp orts the
S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l 's argument t h a t the
§ 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) e v i d e n t i a r y s t a n d a r d s o f
McDonnell Douglas shou ld su pp lan t the
§7 0 3 ( a ) (2) e v i d e n t i a r y s t a n d a r d s o f
G r ig g s . Indeed, t h i s Court has d eve lop ed
d i f f e r e n t s tandards p r e c i s e l y because i t
i s n e ce s s a r y t o take in t o a ccou n t the
i n 1978 - - s i m i l a r l y r e q u i r e th e
a p p l i c a t i o n o f d i s p a r a t e impact a n a ly s i s
t o "any s e l e c t i o n p roced u re " and embrace
th e e v i d e n t i a r y s tandards o f G r ig g s . See
2 9 C . F . R . §1607.3 L ik e t h e EEOC
G u i d e l i n e s , t h e U n i f o r m G u i d e l i n e s
s e p a r a t e l y p r o h i b i t b o t h u n j u s t i f i e d
d i s p a r a t e impact and d i s p a r a t e treatm ent
in the use o f s e l e c t i o n p ro ce d u re s . See
29 C .F .R . §1607.11 ("The p r i n c i p l e s o f
d i s p a r a t e o r unequal treatm ent must be
d i s t i n g u i s h e d from t h e c o n c e p t s o f
v a l i d a t i o n " ) .
30
d i s t i n c t i o n s among v a r i o u s k in d s o f
d i s p a r a t e treatm ent ca s e s as w e l l as th e
b a s i c d i s t i n c t i o n b e tw e e n d i s p a r a t e
t r e a t m e n t d i s c r im in a t i o n and d i s p a r a t e
impact d i s c r im in a t i o n . M oreover, w ith
r e s p e c t t o t h e s e p a r a t e d i s p a r a t e
treatm ent and d i s p a r a t e impact a n a ly s e s ,
th e Court has r u le d th a t " [ e j i t h e r th e o r y
may, o f c o u r s e , be a p p l i e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r
s e t o f f a c t s , " T eam sters . 431 U.S. a t 335
n .1 5 , n ot th a t th e two a n a ly s e s are
f u n c t i o n a l l y in d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e .
A. The C o u r t Has A r t i c u l a t e d
E v i d e n t i a r y S t a n d a r d s F o r
A n a l y z i n g D ispa ra te Treatment
Claims Under S e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) .
The Court has a r t i c u l a t e d s e v e r a l
methods o f a n a ly z in g d i s p a r a t e treatm ent
c la im s under § 7 0 3 ( a ) ( l ) . The p ro p e r
a n a ly s i s v a r i e s depending upon th e nature
o f th e c la im s and th e e v id e n ce p re s e n te d
in each c a s e .
31
1. I n d iv id u a l D isparate Treatm ent.
The M cD on n el l D ouglas model f o r
in d iv id u a l d is p a r a t e treatm ent c a s e s i s
" in te n d e d p r o g r e s s i v e l y t o sharpen the
in q u ir y i n t o th e e l u s i v e f a c t u a l q u e s t io n
o f i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , " Texas
D e p a r t m e n t o f Community A f f a i r s v .
B u rd in e . 450 U.S. 248, 254 n .8 (1 9 8 1 ) ,
when d i r e c t e v id e n ce o f d i s c r im in a t i o n i s
a b se n t . T h u rs ton . 469 U.S. a t 121. Under
t h e i n d i v i d u a l d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t
a n a l y s i s , th e p l a i n t i f f must e s t a b l i s h a
prima f a c i e ca se through c i r c u m s t a n t ia l
e v id e n c e — by showing, f o r example, th a t
he o r she b e lo n g s t o a group p r o t e c t e d by
T i t l e V I I ; th a t he o r she a p p l i e d and was
q u a l i f i e d ; t h a t th e a p p l i c a t i o n was
r e j e c t e d ; and th a t the p o s i t i o n remained
open a f t e r th e r e j e c t i o n . McDonnell
D ou g la s , 411 U.S. a t 802. "The prima
f a c i e ca se e l im in a te s the most
32
common n o n -d is c r im in a to r y rea son s f o r th e
p l a i n t i f f ' s r e j e c t i o n . . . [and] r a i s e s
an i n f e r e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o n ly
b e c a u s e we presum e t h e s e a c t s , i f
o th e rw is e u n exp la in ed , are more l i k e l y
than n ot based on the c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f
im p e rm iss ib le f a c t o r s . ' " B u rd in e . 450
U . S . a t 2 5 3 - 5 5 ( q u o t i n g F u r n c o
C o n s tru c t io n Coro, v . W aters . 438 U.S.
567, 577 (1 9 7 8 ) ) .
A prima f a c i e ca se o f in d iv id u a l
d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t , h o w e v e r , i s
" i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s h i f t th e burden o f
p ro v in g a la c k o f d i s c r im in a t o r y in t e n t t o
th e d e fe n d a n t . " Watson 108 S. Ct. a t 2793
(Blackmun, J . , c o n cu rr in g in p a r t and
c o n c u r r in g in the judgment) ( o r i g i n a l
e m p h a s is ) . Such a prima f a c i e showing
m erely s h i f t s t o the employer th e burden
o f p rod u c in g a d m iss ib le e v id e n ce th a t the
p l a i n t i f f was r e j e c t e d f o r a l e g i t i m a t e ,
33
n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y r e a s o n , t h e r e b y
r e b u t t in g th e presumption and r a i s i n g a
genuine i s s u e o f f a c t as t o whether the
e m p l o y e r d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t t h e
p l a i n t i f f . B u rd in e . 450 U.S. a t 254-55 .
As a r e s u l t , th e employer " fram es [s ] the
f a c t u a l i s s u e w ith s u f f i c i e n t c l a r i t y so
th a t th e p l a i n t i f f w i l l have a f u l l and
f a i r o p p o r tu n ity t o dem onstrate p r e t e x t . "
Id .
2. D i r e c t Evidence o f I n t e n t io n a l
D i s c r im in a t i o n .
" [ T ] h e McDonnell Douglas t e s t i s
i n a p p l i c a b l e where the p l a i n t i f f p re s e n ts
d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . "
T h u rs to n . 4 69 U.S. a t 121; see T eam sters .
431 U.S. a t 358 n .4 4 . Where p l a i n t i f f ' s
d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f d i s c r im in a t i o n i s
a c c e p t e d , an employment p r a c t i c e i s
e s t a b l i s h e d as " d i s c r im in a t o r y on i t s
f a c e " w ith ou t fu r t h e r need t o show a
34
d is c r im in a t o r y i n t e n t . T h u rs to n , 469 U.S.
a t 121 ( p o l i c y c o n d i t i o n i n g t r a n s f e r
r i g h t s on age o f a i r l i n e c a p t a in s i s
d i s c r im in a t o r y on i t s f a c e under th e Age
D i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n E m ploym en t A c t ) ;
M a n h a r t . 435 U . S . a t 708 ( p o l i c y
r e q u i r i n g fem ale employees t o make l a r g e r
c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o p en s ion fund than male
employees i s d i s c r im in a t o r y on i t s f a c e
u n d e r §7 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ) ; P h i l l i p s v . Martin
M a r ie t ta Corp . . 400 U.S. 542 (1971) (per
curiam) ( p o l i c y o f h i r i n g men but not
women w ith p r e - s c h o o l age c h i l d r e n i s
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y on i t s f a c e u n d e r
§703 (a) (1 ) ) .
Where p l a i n t i f f s ' d i r e c t e v id e n ce
e s t a b l i s h e s d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t , th e
burden s h i f t s t o th e employer t o j u s t i f y
th e p r a c t i c e by p ro v in g th e a p p l i c a b i l i t y
o f any s t a t u t o r y immunities o r a f f i r m a t i v e
d e fe n s e s . See T h u rston . 469 U.S. a t 122-
35
25 ( r e j e c t i n g e m p lo y e r 's s t a t u t o r y bona
f i d e o c c u p a t io n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n and bona
f i d e s e n i o r i t y system d e f e n s e s ) ; Manhart.
435 U .S . a t 7 1 6 -1 7 ( r e j e c t i n g c o s t
j u s t i f i c a t i o n d e fe n se as u n a v a i la b le in a
d i s p a r a t e treatm ent c a s e ) ; P h i l l i p s . 400
U.S. a t 544 (remanding f o r e v id e n ce on
bona f i d e o c c u p a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n
d e f e n s e ) .
3. P attern o r P r a c t i c e o f In te n
t i o n a l D is c r im in a t io n .
In c l a s s a c t i o n s and o th e r ca se s
in v o lv in g c la im s o f w idespread in t e n t i o n a l
d i s c r im in a t i o n a g a in s t members o f a r a c e ,
s e x , o r e t h n ic group, s t a t i s t i c a l o r o th e r
e v id e n ce o f a "p a t te r n o r p r a c t i c e " o f
d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t i s s u f f i c i e n t t o
e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e v i o l a t i o n in the
absence o f d i r e c t e v id en ce o f i n t e n t i o n a l
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . Team sters . 431 U.S. a t
360; Franks. 424 U.S. a t 751. "The burden
36
then s h i f t s t o th e em ployer t o d e f e a t th e
prima f a c i e showing o f a p a t t e r n o r
p r a c t i c e b y d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t
[ p l a i n t i f f s ' ] p r o o f i s e i t h e r in a c c u r a t e
o r i n s i g n i f i c a n t . " T eam sters . 431 U.S. a t
360. See a l s o Hazelwood S ch oo l D i s t r i c t v .
United S t a t e s . 433 U.S. 299, 310 (1 9 7 7 ) .
I f the em ployer f a i l s t o re b u t th e prima
f a c i e c a s e , th e c o u r t c o n c lu d e s t h a t a
v i o l a t i o n h a s o c c u r r e d and e n t e r s
a p p r o p r i a t e c l a s s w i d e d e c l a r a t o r y and
i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f w ith ou t h ea r in g fu r t h e r
e v id e n c e . T eam sters . 431 U.S. a t 361.
B. The C o u r t Has A r t i c u l a t e d
Separate E v id e n t ia r y Standards
For^ A na lyz in g D ispa ra te Impact
Claims Under S e c t i o n 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) .
In e n a c t in g § 7 03 ( a ) ( 2 ) , "Congress
r e q u i r e d ' t h e rem oval o f a r t i f i c i a l ,
a r b i t r a r y , and unnecessary b a r r i e r s t o
em ploym ent when t h e b a r r i e r s o p e ra te
i n v i d i o u s l y t o d i s c r im in a t e on th e b a s i s
37
o f r a c i a l o r
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . ' "
433 U.S. 321, 328
o t h e r i m p e r m i s s i b l e
Dothard v . R aw lin son .
(1977) ( emoting G r ig g s .
401 U.S. a t 431) .
The g i s t o f [a §7 0 3 ( a ) (2 ) ]
c la im . . . does n ot in v o lv e an
a s s e r t i o n o f p u r p o s e f u l
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y m ot iv e . I t i s
a s s e r t e d , r a t h e r , t h a t t h e s e
f a c i a l l y n e u tra l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
work in f a c t d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y t o
e x c lu d e women from e l i g i b i l i t y
f o r e m p lo y m e n t . . . [ T ] o
e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e ca se o f
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , a p l a i n t i f f need
o n l y show t h a t t h e f a c i a l l y
n e u t r a l s t a n d a r d s in q u e s t io n
s e l e c t a p p l i c a n t s f o r h i r e in a
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
p a t t e r n .
S in ce i t i s shown th a t the
e m p l o y m e n t s t a n d a r d s a r e
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y in e f f e c t , the
em ployer must meet " th e burden o f
showing th a t any g iv e n requirem ent
[has] . . . a m a n ifes t r e l a t i o n
t o th e employment in q u e s t i o n . "
G riggs v . Duke Power Co. , 401 U.S.
a t 432. I f the employer proves
th a t th e ch a l le n g e d requirem ents
are j o b r e l a t e d , the p l a i n t i f f may
then show th a t o th e r s e l e c t i o n
d e v i c e s w i t h o u t a s i m i l a r
d i s c r im in a t o r y e f f e c t would a l s o
' s e r v e the e m p lo y e r 's l e g i t im a t e
i n t e r e s t i n ' e f f i c i e n t and
t r u s t w o r t h y w o r k m a n s h i p , '
38
Albem arle Paper Co. v . Moody, 422
U .S . a t 425 q u o t in g McDonnell
Douglas Coro, v . G reen. 411 U.S.
792, 801.
D othard . 433 U.S. a t 3 2 9 - 3 0 .13
When a p l a i n t i f f p ro v e s t h a t a
f a c i a l l y n e u t r a l p r a c t i c e has s i g n i f i c a n t
a d v e r s e i m p a c t , t h e p l a i n t i f f has
e s t a b l i s h e d t h e v e r y c o n d u c t t h a t
§ 7 0 3 ( a ) (2) p r o h i b i t s . Watson. 108 S. Ct.
a t 2794 (Blackmun, J . , c o n c u r r in g in p a r t
and co n c u r r in g in th e judgment) ( " u n l i k e a
c la im o f i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , which
th e McDonnell Douglas f a c t o r s e s t a b l i s h
o n ly by in f e r e n c e , the d i s p a r a t e impact
c a u s e d by an employment p r a c t i c e i s
13This a n a ly s i s i s t y p i c a l l y used in
c l a s s a c t i o n s under Rule 23, Fed. R. C iv .
P. , and government p a t te r n o r p r a c t i c e
a c t i o n s under §707 o f T i t l e V I I , 42 U .S .C .
§ 2 0 0 0 e -6 , b e c a u s e d i s p a r a t e im p a c t
d i s c r im in a t i o n i s by i t s nature b r o a d ly
a p p l i c a b l e t o a group. However, the
a n a l y s i s has a l s o been u t i l i z e d in ca s e s
s e e k i n g r e l i e f o n l y f o r i n d i v i d u a l
p l a i n t i f f s . S e e . e . g . . T e a l , 457 U.S. a t
4 4 2 -4 4 ; Lowe v . C ity o f M onrovia . 775 F .2d
998, 1004 (9th C ir . 1985).
39
d i r e c t l y e s t a b l i s h e d by th e num erical
d i s p a r i t y " ) ; see S a t t v . 434 U.S. a t 144
( " G r i g g s h e l d t h a t a v i o l a t i o n o f
§7 0 3 ( a ) (2) can be e s t a b l i s h e d by p r o o f o f
a d i s c r im in a t o r y e f f e c t " ) . S im i la r ly , in
bo th th e d i r e c t e v id e n ce (Thurston) and
p a t t e r n o r p r a c t i c e i n t e n t i o n a l
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n (Team sters) m odels , the
prima f a c i e ca se d i r e c t l y e s t a b l i s h e s the
d i s c r im in a t i o n p r o h ib i t e d by § 7 03 ( a ) ( 1 ) .
The d i r e c t e v i d e n c e and p a t t e r n or
p r a c t i c e m odels , l i k e the d is p a r a t e impact
m o d e l , w ere d e v e l o p e d f o r a n a l y z in g
e v id e n ce co n ce rn in g employment p r a c t i c e s
and p o l i c i e s th a t a f f e c t la r g e numbers o f
p e o p le on a c la s s w id e b a s i s .
The M cD onnel l D ou g la s in d iv id u a l
d i s p a r a t e treatm ent model, on the o th e r
hand, was d eve lop ed t o ana lyze the very
d i f f e r e n t k inds o f e v id e n ce t y p i c a l l y
p re se n te d in a ca se in v o lv in g a d i s c r e t e
40
a c t o f i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r im in a t i o n a g a in s t
a s i n g l e in d i v i d u a l . A prima f a c i e
showing in a McDonnell Douglas ca s e i s n ot
comparable in e i t h e r i t s nature o r i t s
e f f e c t t o a prima f a c i e showing in a
Gripers d i s p a r a t e impact c a s e . A McDonnell
Douglas prima f a c i e ca s e does n o t in
i t s e l f e s t a b l i s h t h e i n t e n t i o n a l
d i s c r im in a t i o n p r o h i b i t e d by § 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ;
i t o n l y " e l i m i n a t e s th e most common
n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y r e a s o n s f o r t h e
p l a i n t i f f ' s r e j e c t i o n . " B u rd in e . 450 U.S.
a t 255; see T eam sters . 431 U.S. a t 358
n. 44.
This Court has u n i fo rm ly h e ld t h a t ,
once the p l a i n t i f f e s t a b l i s h e s a prima
f a c i e d i s p a r a t e i m p a c t c a s e u n d e r
§7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) , th e burden s h i f t s t o th e
em ployer t o p rove th a t the c h a l le n g e d
p r a c t i c e i s j u s t i f i e d . S e e , e . g . f T e a l .
457 U.S. a t 446 ("em ployer must .
41
dem onstrate th a t any g iv e n requirem ent
[has] a m a n ife s t r e l a t i o n s h i p " ) ; New York
C i t y T r a n s i t A u th o r i ty v . B ea zer . 440 U.S.
5 6 8 , 587 (1 9 79 ) (prim a f a c i e c a s e
" r e b u t t e d by [e m p lo y e r 's ] dem onstrat ion
t h a t i t s n a r c o t i c s r u le . . . ' i s j o b
r e l a t e d ' " ) ; D othard . 433 U.S. a t 329
( e m p l o y e r m u st " p r o v [ e ] t h a t t h e
c h a l le n g e d requirem ents are j o b r e l a t e d " ) ;
A lb e m a r le . 422 U.S. a t 425 (employer has
"burden o f p ro v in g th a t i t s t e s t s are ' j o b
r e l a t e d ' " ) ; G r ig g s , 401 U.S. a t 431, 432
("The to u ch s to n e i s b u s in ess n e c e s s i t y " ;
"C ongress has p la c e d on the employer the
b u r d e n o f s h o w i n g t h a t any g i v e n
r e q u i r e m e n t m ust h a v e a m a n i f e s t
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e em ploym ent in
q u e s t i o n " ) ; see a l s o Watson, 108 S. Ct. a t
2794 (Blackmun, J . , c o n cu rr in g in p a r t and
c o n c u r r in g in the ju dgm en t) .
42
While i t i s t r u e th a t an e v i d e n t i a r y
burden may be e i t h e r one o f p e r s u a s io n o r
one o f p r o d u c t io n , t h i s Court in T i t l e V II
d i s p a r a t e impact ca s e s has always imposed
on th e employer th e burden t o persuade th e
t r i e r o f f a c t o f i t s j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r
u s in g p r a c t i c e s th a t have a d i s c r im in a t o r y
im p a ct . Indeed, as p e t i t i o n e r s h ere
co n c e d e , s ee B r i e f f o r P e t i t i o n e r s a t 42,
t h e e m p l o y e r h a s t h e b u r d e n o f
dem onstrat ing b u s in e s s n e c e s s i t y as an
" a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e t o c l a i m s o f
v i o l a t i o n " o f § 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) . Guardians
A s s o c i a t i o n v . C i v i l S e r v i c e Commission,
463 U.S. 582, 598 (1983) (White, J . ,
a n n o u n c in g t h e C o u r t ' s ju d gm en t and
d e l i v e r i n g an o p in io n j o in e d by R ehnquist ,
J . ) ( T i t l e VI c a s e ) .
In t r y i n g t o f o r c e t h e G r ig g s
a n a l y s i s i n t o t h e M cD on n el l D ou g las
form ula , th e S o l i c i t o r General ig n o r e s th e
43
C o u r t ' s r e p e a t e d a d m o n i t i o n s t h a t
McDonnell Douglas does n ot p r o v id e the
p ro p e r model f o r a n a ly z in g a l l T i t l e VII
c l a i m s . I n an in d iv id u a l d is p a r a t e
t re a tm e n t c a s e , i t i s a p p r o p r ia te t o
impose a minimal burden o f p r o d u c t io n on
th e em ployer because the p l a i n t i f f ' s prima
f a c i e showing i s i t s e l f "n o t o n e r o u s , "
Burdine, 450 U.S. a t 253, and does n ot in
i t s e l f e s t a b l i s h a v i o l a t i o n o f
§ 7 0 3 ( a ) ( l ) . That same s l i g h t burden would
be in a p p r o p r ia t e in a d is p a r a t e impact
c a s e , w here t h e prima f a c i e showing
u s u a l ly in c lu d e s s u b s t a n t ia l s t a t i s t i c a l 14
14See, e . g . , McDonnell D ou g las . 411
U.S. a t 802 n.13 ("The f a c t s n e c e s s a r i l y
w i l l va ry in T i t l e VII c a s e s , and the
s p e c i f i c a t i o n . . . o f the prima f a c i e
p r o o f r e q u ir e d from the com plainant in
t h i s ca s e i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l i c a b l e in
e v e r y r e s p e c t t o d i f f e r i n g f a c t u a l
s i t u a t i o n s " ) ; T eam sters . 431 U.S. a t 358
("Our d e c i s i o n in fMcDonnell D ouglas l . .
. d id n o t p u rp o r t t o c r e a t e an i n f l e x i b l e
fo r m u la t io n " ) ; F urnco . 438 U.S. a t 575
(McDonnell Douglas fo rm u la t io n "was not
in ten ded t o be an i n f l e x i b l e r u l e " ) .
44
e v id e n ce o f adverse impact and c o n s t i t u t e s
d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o f a v i o l a t i o n o f
§7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) .
C. The G riggs D isp a ra te Impact
A n a ly s is I s Analogous To The
Teamsters And Thurston D isp a ra te
Treatment A n a ly ses .
The S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l 's t h e o r y f a i l s
on i t s own term s. I f t h e r e i s a need
a n a lo g i z e d i s p a r a t e impact a n a l y s i s t o
some d i s p a r a t e treatm en t mode o f p r o o f ,
am ic i submit t h a t th e Teamsters " p a t t e r n
o r p r a c t i c e " m odel and th e Thurston
" d i r e c t e v i d e n c e " model p r o v id e more
a p p r o p r ia te a n a lo g ie s than th e McDonnell
Douglas " i n d i v i d u a l c a s e " model. In th e
T e a m s t e r s and T h u r s t o n m o d e l s , t h e
a l l e g e d l y d i s c r im in a t o r y con d u ct i s n ot a
s i n g l e , i s o l a t e d d e c i s i o n a f f e c t i n g o n ly
one in d i v i d u a l , but r a th e r a b r o a d ly
a p p l i c a b l e p r a c t i c e o f i n t e n t i o n a l
d i s c r im in a t i o n a f f e c t i n g a c l a s s as a
45
w hole . The purpose o f th e s e a n a lyses i s
comparable t o th e purpose o f the d is p a r a t e
impact model, w ith i t s p a r a l l e l f o c u s on
" a r t i f i c i a l , a r b i t r a r y , and unnecessary
b a r r i e r s t o employment." G r ig g s . 401 U.S.
a t 431. In th e S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l 's terms,
c l a s s w i d e d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i s t h e " f u n c t i o n a l
e q u i v a l e n t " o f d i s p a r a t e i m p a c t
d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .
Because o f the s i m i l a r i t y in the
p r a c t i c e s an a lyzed , the e v id e n t ia r y models
a re a l s o s i m i l a r . In the Teamsters and
Thurston m odels , p l a i n t i f f s e s t a b l i s h a
p r i m a f a c i e c a s e b y i n t r o d u c i n g
s t a t i s t i c a l o r o t h e r e v i d e n c e o f a
" s t a n d a r d o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u r e " o f
c la s s w id e d is p a r a t e treatm ent, T eam sters .
431 U.S. a t 336, o r by p ro v in g the
c l a s s w i d e a p p l i c a t i o n o f a f a c i a l l y
d i s c r im in a t o r y p o l i c y . T h u rston . 469 U.S.
46
a t 121. In th e G riggs d i s p a r a t e impact
model, p l a i n t i f f s e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e
ca s e by m a rsh a l l in g comparable e v id e n c e o f
a p r a c t i c e a f f e c t i n g an e n t i r e c l a s s o f
employees o r a p p l i c a n t s . M oreover, in the
Teamsters and Thurston d i s p a r a t e treatm ent
m odels , as in th e G riggs d i s p a r a t e impact
m odel, p r o o f o f a prima f a c i e ca s e s h i f t s
th e burden o f p e r s u a s io n , n o t th e burden
o f p r o d u c t io n , t o the em ployer . See
T eam sters . 431 U.S. a t 360; T h u rs to n . 469
U.S. a t 122 -25 . In a l l th r e e m odels ,
p l a i n t i f f has borne h i s burden o f p r o o f t o
e s t a b l i s h a v i o l a t i o n o f T i t l e V I I ;
d e fen dan t then has th e burden o f p ro v in g a
j u s t i f i c a t i o n , e s t a b l i s h i n g what i s , in
e s s e n c e , an a f f i r m a t i v e d e fe n s e .
In s h o r t , th e r e i s no need t o change
th e G riggs d is p a r a t e impact a n a ly s i s t o
make i t c o n fo r m t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
d i s p a r a t e treatm ent a n a l y s i s . E x is t in g
47
e v i d e n t i a r y s t a n d a r d s f o r a n a l y z i n g
d i s p a r a t e im p a ct d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a r e
a l r e a d y c l o s e l y a n a l o g o u s t o t h e
e v i d e n t i a r y s t a n d a r d s f o r a n a l y z i n g
d i s p a r a t e treatm ent d i s c r im in a t i o n under
Teamsters and T h u rston .
IV. OVERRULING THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS
OF GRIGGS AND ITS PROGENY WOULD BE
CONTRARY TO THE REMEDIAL PURPOSE OF
TITLE VII.
The S o l i c i t o r General argu es , in
e s s e n c e , th a t G riggs and i t s progeny
sh ou ld be o v e r r u le d in o rd e r t o make the
e m p lo y e r 's burden in a G riggs d is p a r a t e
impact ca se conform t o th e e m p lo y e r 's
burden in a McDonnell Douglas in d iv id u a l
d i s p a r a t e treatm ent ca s e . O verru l in g the
C o u r t ' s p r i o r d e c i s i o n s in t h i s manner,
h o w e v e r , w ou ld d r a s t i c a l l y a l t e r the
nature o f d i s p a r a t e impact a n a ly s i s under
§ 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) . The e m p lo y e r 's burden would
be reduced t o such an e x te n t th a t a l l but
48
th e most u n im ag in at ive em ployers — unable
even t o a r t i c u l a t e a l e g i t i m a t e reason f o r
p r a c t i c e s having a s i g n i f i c a n t adverse
impact — would be a b le t o re b u t a showing
o f d i s p a r a t e impact d i s c r im in a t i o n , no
m atter how c o m p e l l in g . The r e s u l t would
be an e f f e c t i v e r e p e a l o f §703 (a) ( 2 ) .
The Court in G riggs i d e n t i f i e d T i t l e
V I I ' s fundamental purpose as " th e removal
o f a r t i f i c i a l , a r b i t r a r y , and unnecessary
b a r r i e r s t o employment when th e b a r r i e r s
o p e ra te i n v i d i o u s l y t o d i s c r im in a t e on the
b a s i s o f r a c i a l o r o th e r im p erm iss ib le
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . " 401 U.S. a t 431. The
s t a t u t e " p o l i c e [ s ] " not o n ly the problem
o f i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r im in a t i o n through the
d i s p a r a t e treatm en t a n a ly se s a v a i l a b l e
under § 7 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) , but a l s o " th e problem o f
s u b c o n sc io u s s t e r e o t y p e s and p r e j u d i c e s , "
Watson, 108 S. Ct. a t 2786 (p a r t I I B ) , and
" b u i l t - i n p r a c t i c e s p re s e rv e d through
49
form, h a b i t o r i n e r t i a . " S. Rep. No. 88-
8 67 a t 11. The l a t t e r purpose d e r iv e s
from th e terms o f § 7 03 ( a ) (2) and, as
C o n g r e s s r e c o g n i z e d , i s e n f o r c e d by
a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d i s p a r a t e im pact
a n a l y s i s a r t i c u l a t e d in G r ig g s . The
S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l 's p ro p o sa l t o o v e r r u le
th e e v i d e n t i a r y standards o f Griggs and
i t s progeny i s c o n t r a r y t o T i t l e V I I ' s
fundamental purpose .
The S o l i c i t o r General would have the
Court transmute th e e m p lo y e r 's burden o f
p e rs u a s io n in a G riggs d is p a r a t e impact
ca s e i n t o th e burden o f p r o d u c t io n imposed
on an employer in a McDonnell Douglas
in d iv id u a l d is p a r a t e treatm ent ca se — a
f e a t o f j u d i c i a l alchemy th a t would
d r a s t i c a l l y change the nature o f d i s p a r a t e
impact a n a ly s i s under §703 (a) ( 2 ) . The
e m p lo y e r 's burden in such ca s e s o f p ro v in g
an " o v e r r id in g b u s in e ss n e c e s s i t y , " as
50
Congress termed i t , i s a p p r o p r ia t e l y h igh
because th e c h a l le n g e d p r a c t i c e has been
shown t o v i o l a t e §703 (a) (2) as a prima
f a c i e m a tter . The S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l 's
p r o p o s e d standard , in c o n t r a s t , would
d e c l a r e such p r a c t i c e s la w fu l whenever th e
e m p l o y e r c o u l d s im p ly a r t i c u l a t e a
" l e g i t i m a t e , n o n d is c r im in a to r y rea son " f o r
i t s a c t i o n s ; th e em ployer "need n ot [even]
persuade th e c o u r t th a t i t was a c t u a l l y
m ot iv a ted by th e p r o f f e r e d re a so n [ ] . "
Burdine, 450 U.S. a t 254. The S o l i c i t o r
General would then perm it th e p l a i n t i f f t o
in t r o d u c e c o n t r a r y e v id e n c e , but would put
th e r i s k o f nonpersu as ion o f b u s in e ss
n e c e s s i t y on th e p l a i n t i f f . F a i l i n g t h i s ,
a l l th e p l a i n t i f f then c o u ld do t o abate
th e e x c lu s i o n a r y p r a c t i c e would be t o
p r e s e n t e v id e n ce o f a l t e r n a t i v e s e l e c t i o n
d e v i c e s . As a r e s u l t , th e p l a i n t i f f would
have not o n ly th e burden o f p ro v in g a
51
prima f a c i e ca se o f d i s p a r a t e im pact, but
a l s o th e burden o f d i s p r o v in g b u s in e ss
n e c e s s i t y .
The scheme proposed by th e S o l i c i t o r
General would thwart the s p e c i f i c rem edia l
p u r p o s e o f §703 (a) (2) by making i t
v i r t u a l l y im p o s s ib le f o r a p l a i n t i f f t o
p r e v a i l on a c la im o f d i s p a r a t e impact
d i s c r im in a t i o n . As a p r a c t i c a l m atter ,
§703 (a) (2) w ou ld be r e p e a l e d as an
independent s u b s ta n t iv e p r o v i s i o n , and the
e v i l s t o which th a t p r o v i s i o n i s addressed
— " t h e p r o b l e m o f s u b c o n s c i o u s
s t e r e o t y p e s and p r e ju d i c e s " and " b u i l t - i n
p r a c t i c e s p re se rv e d through form, h a b i t o r
i n e r t i a " — would go unremedied.
Ig n o r in g th a t the Gricras d is p a r a t e
i m p a c t s t a n d a r d d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t s
s t a t u t o r y language and c o n g r e s s io n a l w i l l ,
the S o l i c i t o r General attem pts t o j u s t i f y
i t s r e v i s i o n by r a i s i n g the s p e c t e r o f
52
q u o t a s and i n t r u s i o n on m a n a g e r ia l
p r e r o g a t i v e s . See B r i e f f o r th e United
S ta te s as Amicus Curiae a t 25. G riggs
i t s e l f r e j e c t e d such c la im s , 401 U.S. a t
436, as d id Congress when i t r a t i f i e d
G riggs in 1 9 7 2 .15
M o r e o v e r , t h e s u g g e s t i o n t h a t
s u b j e c t i v e s e l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s a r e
im p o s s ib le t o v a l i d a t e 16 i s s im ply wrong.
The c o u r t s h ave i d e n t i f i e d s p e c i f i c
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f v a l i d s u b j e c t i v e r a t in g
p r o c e d u r e s , s u ch as u s i n g s p e c i f i c
g u i d e l i n e s f o r r a t e r s , r a t i n g o n l y
1 5 C o n g r e s s i o n a 1 o p p o n e n t s
s p e c i f i c a l l y o b j e c t e d t o t h e 1972
amendments on th e s e grounds, but t h e i r
v iew s were n ot a c c e p te d . E . g . , 117 Cong.
Rec. 32108 (1971) (comments o f Rep. R a r ick
t h a t b i l l w ou ld r e q u i r e p r e f e r e n t i a l
t r e a t m e n t and m a in te n a n c e o f r a c i a l
b a l a n c e ) ; 117 Cong. Rec. 38402 (1971)
(comments o f Sen. A l l e n th a t b i l l would
i n f r i n g e on d i s c r e t i o n o f s t a t e and l o c a l
o f f i c i a l s t o s e l e c t e m p lo y e e s ) .
16See B r i e f f o r the United S ta te s as
Amicus Curiae a t 25 n . 3 5 ; B r i e f f o r
P e t i t i o n e r s a t 47.
53
o b s e r v a b l e b e h a v i o r s o r p e r f o r m a n c e ,
r e q u i r in g r a t e r s t o have knowledge o f j o b
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , and u s in g an e v a lu a t iv e
d e v i c e w ith f i x e d co n te n t th a t c a l l s f o r
d i s c r e t e j u d g m e n t s . 17 S u b j e c t i v e
s e l e c t i o n p roced u res can be and have been
s u c c e s s f u l l y v a l i d a t e d . 18 See Rose,
S u b je c t i v e Employment P r a c t i c e s . 25 San
Diego L. Rev. a t 87 -92 .
17See B. S c h l e i & P. Grossman,
Employment D is c r im in a t io n Law 202-05 (2d
ed . 1983) ( c o l l e c t i n g c a s e s ) .
18See, e . g . , F i r e f i g h t e r s I n s t , f o r
R a c ia l E q u a l i ty v . C ity o f S t . L o u i s . 616
F .2d 350, 362 (8th C ir . 1980) , c e r t ,
d e n ie d , 452 U.S. 938 (1981) ( in t e r v ie w and
t r a i n i n g s i m u l a t i o n s ) ; Wade v . M i s s i s s i p p i
Co o p . E xtension S e r v . , 615 F. Supp. 1574
(N.D. M iss . 1985) (prom otiona l perform ance
e v a l u a t i o n ) ; T i l l e r v v . P a c i f i c T e l . Co. ,
34 FEP Cases 54 (N.D. Cal. 1982) ; Wilson
v . Michigan B e l l T e l . Co. , 550 F. Supp.
1296 (E.D. Mich. 1982) ( form al assessment
p r o c e d u r e s ) .
54
V. THE FIRST AND THIRD QUESTIONS
PRESENTED IN THE PETITION FOR
CERTIORARI ARE NOT PRESENTED BY THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.
With r e s p e c t t o th e f i r s t q u e s t io n
p re s e n te d in th e p e t i t i o n (c o n ce rn in g th e
s tandards f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g a prima f a c i e
ca s e o f d i s p a r a t e impact) and th e t h i r d
q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d ( c o n c e r n i n g t h e
a p p l i c a t i o n o f d i s p a r a t e impact a n a ly s i s
t o multicom ponent s e l e c t i o n p r a c t i c e s ) ,
a m i c i r e l y on r e s p o n d e n t s ' b r i e f .
However, as we b r i e f l y e x p la in , i t appears
t h a t n e i t h e r q u e s t i o n i s a c t u a l l y
p re s e n te d by th e r e c o r d b e f o r e th e Court.
As t o th e f i r s t q u e s t i o n , p e t i t i o n e r s
argue t h a t th e Ninth C i r c u i t ' s r e l i a n c e
upon s t a t i s t i c s comparing cannery w ith
noncannery p o s i t i o n s i s e rron eou s becau se
t h e r e was no showing o f an in t e r n a l
prom otion system. Such s t a t i s t i c s would
be m arsh al led as e v id e n ce o f p rom ot ion a l
d i s c r im in a t i o n where an em ployer m ainta ins
55
an in t e r n a l prom otion system in which
low er l e v e l employees are th e s e l e c t i o n
p o o l f o r upper l e v e l p o s i t i o n s . S e e .
e . q . . Paxton v . Union N ationa l Bank. 688
F. 2d 552, 564 (8th C ir . 1982) , c e r t .
d e n ie d . 460 U.S. 1083 (1983) . However,
p e t i t i o n e r s e r r i n a r g u i n g t h a t
com parative s t a t i s t i c s can be used o n ly
where th e r e are in t e r n a l prom otion s .
In t h i s c a s e , p l a i n t i f f s ch a l le n g e d ,
on bo th d is p a r a t e impact and d is p a r a t e
treatm ent grounds, s e v e r a l s p e c i f i c h i r i n g
p r a c t i c e s - - n e p o t i s m , s u b j e c t i v e l y
e v a l u a t e d s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a , s ep a ra te
h i r i n g c h a n n e l s and word o f mouth
re c r u i tm e n t , a r e h i r e p r e fe r e n c e , and a
s e r i e s o f r e l a t e d p r a c t i c e s in v o lv in g ra ce
l a b e l i n g , housing and m essing. P l a i n t i f f s
p re s e n te d independent s t a t i s t i c a l o r o th e r
e v id e n c e th a t each o f th e s e s p e c i f i c
p r a c t i c e s had a s i g n i f i c a n t adverse impact
56
on m in o r i ty c l a s s members. Except f o r the
r e h i r e p r e f e r e n c e , th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
e r r o n e o u s l y f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e
c h a l l e n g e under, o r e r re d in a p p ly in g , th e
d i s p a r a t e impact s tan dard . See App. C ert .
V I -1 9 -V I -3 9 ? see a l s o . B r i e f f o r th e
United S ta te s as Amicus Curiae a t 20 ("The
d i s t r i c t c o u r t d id n ot app ly d i s p a r a t e
im p a c t a n a l y s i s t o th e s e l e c t i o n o f
noncannery workers g e n e r a l l y , and th e r e i s
t h e r e f o r e no f in d in g th a t r e s p o n d e n ts '
s t a t i s t i c s d id n o t make ou t a prima f a c i e
ca s e under th e d i s p a r a t e impact m o d e l " ) .
The Ninth C i r c u i t , t h e r e f o r e , p r o p e r ly
remanded th e s e i s s u e s t o th e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t .
The com parative s t a t i s t i c s t o which
p e t i t i o n e r s o b j e c t were n ot r e l i e d upon as
th e s o l e e v id e n c e o f the d i s p a r a t e impact
o f th e c h a l le n g e d p r a c t i c e s . The Ninth
C i r c u i t u p h e l d t h e u s e o f t h e s e
57
co m p a ra t iv e s t a t i s t i c s on th e l im i t e d
ground th a t "such s t a t i s t i c s can s e rv e t o
d e m o n s t r a t e t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r a c t i c e s w h ich have
a lr e a d y been in d ep en d en tly e s t a b l i s h e d . "
App. C e r t . V I - 1 6 . The c o m p a r a t iv e
s t a t i s t i c s , which do n ot appear s t r i c t l y
t o be n e ce s s a ry t o e s t a b l i s h the d is p a r a t e
i m p a c t o f e a c h o f t h e c h a l l e n g e d
p r a c t i c e s , were p re se n te d as a d d i t i o n a l
e v i d e n c e t h a t " s o m e p r a c t i c e o r
com bin at ion o f p r a c t i c e s has caused the
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f employees by r a c e . " App.
C e r t . V I - 1 8 . 19
190n th e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , the
Ninth C i r c u i t c o r r e c t l y c o n s id e r e d th e se
s t a t i s t i c s g i v e n t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f
e s t a b l i s h i n g the a v a i la b l e la b o r p o o l f o r
th e migrant and season a l noncannery j o b s
in q u e s t io n , the a r b i t r a r y nature o f the
q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a c t u a l l y imposed f o r the
n o n ca n n e ry j o b s , and th e f a c t t h a t
m in o r i ty cannery workers were ap p a ren t ly
q u a l i f i e d and a v a i l a b l e . The Ninth
C i r c u i t ' s u n w i l l i n g n e s s t o r e l y on
p e t i t i o n e r s ' g e n e r a l i z e d census da ta , and
i t s r e l i a n c e in s te a d on more p r o b a t iv e
58
As t o th e t h i r d q u e s t io n p re s e n te d ,
p e t i t i o n e r s argue th a t o n ly " cu m u la t iv e "
e v i d e n c e o f t h e im p a ct o f s e v e r a l
employment p r a c t i c e s was p r e s e n te d . For
t h e rea son s s t a t e d above , we b e l i e v e
p e t i t i o n e r s have m is s ta te d th e r e c o r d :
S p e c i f i c , i d e n t i f i e d h i r i n g p r a c t i c e s were
c h a l l e n g e d , and bo th p r a c t i c e - s p e c i f i c
e v i d e n c e and c u m u l a t i v e s t a t i s t i c a l
e v id e n c e were p re se n te d be low .
However, i f t h i s were a ca s e in which
a p l a i n t i f f ch a l le n g e d a multicom ponent
em ploym ent p r a c t i c e , th e adequacy o f
cu m u la t ive e v id e n ce o f d i s p a r a t e impact
w o u ld d ep en d upon p a r t i c u l a r f a c t u a l
c i r c u m s ta n c e s . I f th e p r a c t i c e c o n s i s t e d
o f a s e r i e s o f s e q u e n t ia l s t e p s , e . g . .
p r a c t i c e - s p e c i f i c e v id e n ce o f d i s p a r a t e
i m p a c t c o u p l e d w i t h r e s p o n d e n t s '
com parative s t a t i s t i c s , are u n derstan dab le
and p ro p e r in view o f th e r e c o r d in t h i s
c a s e .
59
T e a l . 457 U.S. a t 443-44 (a q u a l i f y i n g
w r i t t e n e x a m i n a t i o n f o l l o w e d b y
c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f o th e r c r i t e r i a ) , the
p l a i n t i f f might a t ta c k one o r more s t e p s ,
o r th e p l a i n t i f f might a t ta c k the p r o c e s s
as a w hole . While a p l a i n t i f f c h a l le n g in g
one o r more d i s c r e t e s te p s in the p r o c e s s
t y p i c a l l y i n t r o d u c e s e v id e n ce o f the
d i s p a r a t e impact o f each ch a l le n g e d s t e p ,
a p l a i n t i f f c h a l le n g in g th e p r o c e s s as a
whole i s n ot r e q u ire d t o in t ro d u c e such
e v i d e n c e . 20
Moreover, a p l a i n t i f f c h a l le n g in g a
m u lt i c o m p o n e n t p r a c t i c e in which the
employer combines c o n s id e r a t i o n o f s e v e r a l
f a c t o r s , e . g . . T e a l . 457 U.S. a t 444
( e m p lo y e e s p rom oted from a l i s t o f
20See Green v . USX C o ro . . 843 F.2d
1511, 1524 (3rd C ir . 1988) ; Segar v .
Sm ith . 738 F.2d 1249, 1271 (D.C. C ir .
1984) . See a l s o . 29 C.F.R. § 1 6 0 7 .16Q
(Uniform G u id e l in e s apply t o any "measure
[ o r ] com bination o f m e a s u r e s " ) .
60
s u c c e s s f u l t e s t ta k e r s based on an amalgam
o f work perform ance , recommendations and
s e n i o r i t y ) , sh ou ld n o t be r e q u ir e d t o
i d e n t i f y and p r e s e n t s p e c i f i c d i s p a r a t e
impact e v id e n c e as t o each f a c t o r . T i t l e
V I I d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t d i s c r e t e
d i s c r im in a t o r y c r i t e r i a in th e a b s t r a c t ,
but as " a c t u a l l y a p p l i e d . " A lb e m a r le . 422
U.S. a t 433. I f an em ployer uses an
amalgam o f f a c t o r s as a p r a c t i c e , and th a t
p r a c t i c e has a d i s p a r a t e im pact , th e
p l a i n t i f f shou ld n ot be r e q u ir e d t o go
t h r o u g h t h e a c a d e m i c e x e r c i s e o f
d i s e n t a n g l in g th e f a c t o r s in o r d e r t o
a s c e r t a i n which p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r s caused
th e d i s p a r a t e impact o f th e p r a c t i c e as a
w hole . That burden should be borne by the
e m p lo y e r . 21
21I t i s the employer who presumably
has an i n t e r e s t in d i s t i n g u i s h i n g among
s e v e r a l f a c t o r s th a t produce a d is p a r a t e
i m p a c t i n o r d e r t o i s o l a t e t h e
d i s c r im in a t o r y f a c t o r s and t o save the
61
Amici r e s p e c t f u l l y submit th a t the
f i r s t and t h i r d q u e s t io n s p re se n te d in the
p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i are not a c t u a l l y
p re s e n te d by the f a c t s o f t h i s ca s e , and
t h a t th o s e q u e s t io n s should n ot be d e c id e d
on t h i s r e c o r d .
r e s t . I t i s the employer who may wish t o
con d u ct se p a ra te v a l i d a t i o n s t u d ie s o f the
f a c t o r s . Moreover, i t i s the employer who
has th e o b l i g a t i o n under a d m in is t r a t iv e
g u i d e l i n e s t o "m aintain and have a v a i la b l e
r e c o r d s o r o th e r in fo rm a t io n showing which
components [ o f a multicomponent s e l e c t i o n
p r o c e d u r e ] have an a d v e r s e i m p a c t . "
Uniform G u id e l in e s on Employee S e l e c t i o n
P r o c e d u r e s , 29 C . F . R . § 1607.15 (a) (2 )
(em ployers w ith 100 o r more employees
sh ou ld m aintain component data i f o v e r a l l
p r a c t i c e has adverse impact o r f o r two
y ea rs a f t e r impact e l i m i n a t e d ) . See B r i e f
f o r th e United S ta te s as Amicus Curiae a t
22 ( " c e r t a i n l y i f [m u l t ip l e ] f a c t o r s
combine t o produce a s i n g l e u l t im a te
s e l e c t i o n d e c i s i o n and i t i s not p o s s i b l e
t o c h a l le n g e each one, the d e c i s i o n may be
c h a l le n g e d (and defended) as a w h o l e " ) .
62
CONCLUSION
The o r d e r o f th e Ninth C i r c u i t
remanding th e ca s e f o r fu r t h e r p r o c e e d in g s
sh ou ld be a f f i r m e d .
R e s p e c t f u l l y Subm itted,
JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON
RONALD L. ELLIS
NAACP Legal Defense and
E d u cat ion a l Fund, I n c .
BILL LANN LEE*
PATRICK 0. PATTERSON, JR.
THEODORE M. SHAW
NAACP Legal Defense and
E d u cat ion a l Fund, I n c .
ANTONIA HERNANDEZ
E. RICHARD LARSON
JOSE ROBERTO JUAREZ, JR.
Mexican American Legal Defense
and E d u ca t ion a l Fund
RUBEN FRANCO
KENNETH KIMERLING
Puerto Rican Legal Defense
and Education Fund
Counsel f o r Amici Curiae
*Counsel o f Record
November 1988
Hamilton Graphics, Inc.— 200 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y.— (212) 966-4177