watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
argued
january
decided
june
petitioner
employee
black
rejected
favor
white
applicants
four
promotions
supervisory
positions
respondent
bank
developed
precise
formal
selection
criteria
positions
instead
relied
subjective
judgment
white
supervisors
acquainted
candidates
nature
jobs
exhausting
administrative
remedies
petitioner
filed
suit
federal
district
alleging
inter
alia
respondent
promotion
policies
unlawfully
discriminated
blacks
generally
personally
violation
title
vii
civil
rights
act
petitioner
individual
claim
held
met
burden
proof
discriminatory
treatment
evidentiary
standard
reasons
dismissed
action
appeals
affirmed
relevant
part
rejecting
petitioner
contention
district
erred
failing
apply
disparate
impact
analysis
promotion
claims
held
precedent
title
vii
challenge
discretionary
subjective
promotion
system
analyzed
disparate
treatment
model
held
judgment
vacated
case
remanded
vacated
remanded
justice
delivered
opinion
respect
parts
iii
concluding
disparate
impact
analysis
may
applied
subjective
discretionary
promotion
system
pp
decisions
applying
disparate
impact
analysis
facially
neutral
employment
practices
adopted
without
deliberately
discriminatory
motive
may
operation
functionally
equivalent
illegal
intentional
discrimination
involved
standardized
tests
criteria
written
aptitude
tests
high
school
diploma
requirements
see
griggs
duke
power
consistently
used
disparate
treatment
theory
proof
intent
discriminate
required
review
hiring
promotion
decisions
based
exercise
personal
judgment
application
subjective
criteria
see
mcdonnell
douglas
green
today
never
addressed
question
whether
disparate
impact
analysis
may
applied
subjective
employment
criteria
pp
reasons
supporting
use
disparate
impact
analysis
apply
subjective
employment
practices
analysis
might
effectively
abolished
confined
objective
standardized
selection
practices
since
employer
insulate
liability
griggs
progeny
simply
combining
practices
subjective
component
brief
interview
system
refrained
making
objective
tests
absolutely
determinative
thereby
remain
free
give
tests
almost
much
weight
chose
without
risking
disparate
impact
challenge
moreover
disparate
impact
analysis
principle
less
applicable
subjective
employment
criteria
objective
standardized
tests
since
either
case
facially
neutral
practice
adopted
without
discriminatory
intent
may
effects
indistinguishable
intentionally
discriminatory
practices
simply
inference
discriminatory
intent
drawn
customary
reasonable
practice
businesses
leaving
promotion
decisions
unchecked
discretion
lower
level
supervisors
familiar
jobs
candidates
follow
supervisors
always
act
without
discriminatory
intent
even
assumed
discrimination
individual
supervisors
adequately
policed
disparate
treatment
analysis
analysis
solve
problem
created
subconscious
stereotypes
prejudices
lead
conduct
prohibited
title
vii
pp
since
neither
district
appeals
evaluated
statistical
evidence
determine
whether
petitioner
made
prima
facie
case
discrimination
disparate
impact
theory
case
must
remanded
pp
justice
joined
chief
justice
justice
white
justice
scalia
concluded
parts
extension
disparate
impact
analysis
subjective
employment
practices
increase
risk
order
avoid
liability
employers
adopt
surreptitious
numerical
goals
quotas
belief
since
disparate
impact
analysis
inevitably
focuses
statistical
evidence
practically
rebutted
kind
typically
used
defend
objective
criteria
threat
ruinous
litigation
requires
steps
ensure
plaintiff
establish
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
theory
result
contrary
congress
clearly
expressed
intent
employer
shall
required
grant
preferential
treatment
protected
individual
group
numerical
imbalance
work
force
pp
however
application
disparate
impact
theory
subjective
employment
criteria
chilling
effect
legitimate
business
practices
since
high
standards
proof
applicable
cases
operate
constrain
theory
within
proper
bounds
provide
adequate
safeguards
danger
quotas
preferential
treatment
adopted
employers
pp
establishing
prima
facie
case
subjective
selection
criteria
issue
plaintiff
may
difficulty
satisfying
initial
burden
identifying
specific
employment
practices
allegedly
responsible
observed
statistical
disparity
especially
employer
combined
subjective
criteria
rigid
standardized
rules
tests
moreover
plaintiff
statistical
evidence
must
sufficiently
substantial
prove
practice
question
caused
exclusion
job
promotion
applicants
membership
protected
group
defendant
free
attack
probative
weight
evidence
point
fallacies
deficiencies
plaintiff
data
statistical
techniques
adduce
countervailing
evidence
pp
nature
business
necessity
job
relatedness
defense
defendant
burden
producing
evidence
plaintiff
made
prima
facie
case
also
constrains
application
disparate
impact
theory
employers
required
even
defending
standardized
objective
tests
introduce
formal
validation
studies
showing
particular
criteria
predict
actual
performance
context
subjective
discretionary
decisions
employer
often
find
easier
case
standardized
tests
produce
evidence
manifest
relationship
employment
question
many
jobs
example
involving
managerial
responsibilities
require
personal
qualities
amenable
standardized
testing
nevertheless
job
related
evaluating
claims
discretionary
practices
insufficiently
related
legitimate
business
purposes
courts
generally
less
competent
employers
restructure
business
practices
therefore
attempt
pp
justice
blackmun
joined
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
agreeing
analysis
may
applied
claims
discrimination
caused
subjective
discretionary
selection
processes
concluded
context
plaintiff
successfully
establishes
prima
facie
case
shifts
burden
proof
production
defendant
establish
employment
practice
question
business
necessity
see
albemarle
paper
moody
dothard
rawlinson
griggs
duke
power
plurality
assertion
contrary
mimics
allocation
burdens
established
different
context
individual
claims
unlike
claim
intentional
discrimination
prima
facie
case
establishes
inference
disparate
impact
caused
employment
practice
directly
established
numerical
disparity
shown
prima
facie
case
employer
avoid
liability
prove
discriminatory
effect
justified
justified
business
necessity
practice
must
directly
relate
prospective
employee
ability
perform
job
effectively
must
necessary
fulfill
legitimate
business
requirements
pp
plurality
suggestion
employer
often
find
easier
produce
evidence
subjective
factor
standardized
tests
may
prove
misleading
since
employer
still
obligation
persuade
introduction
relevant
evidence
pp
fact
formal
validation
techniques
endorsed
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
uniform
guidelines
employee
selection
procedures
always
used
prove
processes
free
employer
burden
proof
link
processes
job
performance
may
depending
type
size
business
nature
particular
job
established
variety
methods
including
results
studies
expert
testimony
prior
successful
experience
although
common
sense
plays
part
assessment
reviewing
may
rely
employer
sense
normal
substitute
neutral
assessment
evidence
pp
employer
burden
justifying
employment
practice
produces
disparate
impact
lessened
simply
practice
relies
upon
subjective
assessments
establishing
general
rule
allowing
employer
escape
liability
simply
articulating
vague
subjective
criteria
disserve
title
vii
goal
eradicating
employment
discrimination
encouraging
employers
abandon
attempts
construct
neutral
selection
mechanisms
favor
broad
generalities
subjective
criteria
sometimes
pose
difficult
problems
courts
charged
assessing
requiring
development
greater
factual
record
perhaps
exercise
greater
degree
judgment
dictate
processes
generally
accepted
face
value
pp
justice
stevens
agreeing
racially
adverse
impact
employer
practice
simply
committing
employment
decisions
unchecked
discretion
white
supervisory
corps
subject
test
griggs
duke
power
concluded
since
cases
involving
practices
include
many
variables
adequately
considered
general
context
discussion
evidentiary
standards
postponed
district
made
appropriate
findings
concerning
petitioner
prima
facie
evidence
disparate
impact
respondent
explanation
subjective
practice
art
brender
argued
cause
filed
briefs
petitioner
bruce
mcgee
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
state
texas
et
al
jim
mattox
attorney
general
mary
keller
executive
assistant
attorney
general
james
todd
american
civil
liberties
union
et
al
deborah
ellis
isabelle
katz
pinzler
joan
bertin
american
psychological
association
donald
bersoff
lawyers
committee
civil
rights
law
john
townsend
rich
conrad
harper
stuart
land
norman
redlich
william
robinson
judith
winston
richard
seymour
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
et
al
bill
lann
lee
stephen
cutler
joan
graff
patricia
shiu
julius
levonne
chambers
ronald
ellis
charles
stephen
ralston
antonia
hernandez
richard
larson
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
reynolds
deputy
solicitor
general
ayer
deputy
assistant
attorney
general
clegg
david
flynn
charles
shanor
equal
employment
advisory
council
robert
williams
douglas
mcdowell
edward
potter
garen
dodge
american
society
personnel
administration
et
al
lawrence
lorber
robert
kirk
landmark
legal
foundation
jerald
hill
mark
bredemeier
merchants
manufacturers
association
paul
grossman
justice
announced
judgment
delivered
opinion
respect
parts
iii
opinion
respect
parts
chief
justice
justice
white
justice
scalia
join
case
requires
us
decide
evidentiary
standards
applied
title
vii
civil
rights
act
stat
amended
et
determining
whether
employer
practice
committing
promotion
decisions
subjective
discretion
supervisory
employees
led
illegal
discrimination
petitioner
clara
watson
black
hired
respondent
fort
worth
bank
trust
bank
proof
operator
august
january
watson
promoted
position
teller
bank
facility
february
sought
become
supervisor
tellers
main
lobby
white
male
however
selected
job
watson
sought
position
supervisor
bank
position
given
white
female
february
watson
served
year
commercial
teller
bank
main
lobby
informally
assistant
supervisor
tellers
man
holding
position
promoted
watson
applied
vacancy
white
female
supervisor
bank
selected
instead
watson
applied
vacancy
created
white
male
selected
job
bank
employees
developed
precise
formal
criteria
evaluating
candidates
positions
watson
unsuccessfully
applied
relied
instead
subjective
judgment
supervisors
acquainted
candidates
nature
jobs
filled
supervisors
involved
denying
watson
four
promotions
issue
white
watson
filed
discrimination
charge
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
exhausting
administrative
remedies
filed
lawsuit
district
northern
district
texas
alleged
bank
unlawfully
discriminated
blacks
hiring
compensation
initial
placement
promotions
terminations
terms
conditions
employment
watson
motion
federal
rule
civil
procedure
district
certified
class
consisting
blacks
applied
employed
respondent
october
may
submit
employment
applications
respondent
future
app
district
later
decertified
broad
class
concluded
light
evidence
presented
trial
common
question
law
fact
uniting
groups
applicants
employees
splitting
class
along
line
found
class
black
employees
meet
numerosity
requirement
rule
accordingly
subclass
decertified
also
concluded
watson
adequate
representative
applicant
class
promotion
claims
typical
claims
members
group
watson
proceeded
zealously
behalf
job
applicants
however
went
address
merits
claims
concluded
watson
failed
establish
prima
facie
case
racial
discrimination
hiring
percentage
blacks
bank
work
force
approximated
percentage
blacks
metropolitan
area
bank
located
app
district
addressed
watson
individual
claims
evidentiary
standards
apply
discriminatory
treatment
case
see
mcdonnell
douglas
green
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
concluded
evidence
presented
trial
watson
established
prima
facie
case
employment
discrimination
bank
met
rebuttal
burden
presenting
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
challenged
promotion
decisions
also
concluded
watson
failed
show
reasons
pretexts
racial
discrimination
accordingly
action
dismissed
app
divided
panel
appeals
fifth
circuit
affirmed
part
majority
concluded
abuse
discretion
district
class
decertification
decisions
order
avoid
unfair
prejudice
members
class
black
job
applicants
however
appeals
vacated
portion
judgment
affecting
remanded
instructions
dismiss
claims
without
prejudice
majority
affirmed
district
conclusion
watson
failed
prove
claim
racial
discrimination
standards
set
mcdonnell
douglas
supra
burdine
supra
watson
argued
district
erred
failing
apply
disparate
impact
analysis
claims
discrimination
promotion
relying
fifth
circuit
precedent
majority
appeals
panel
held
title
vii
challenge
allegedly
discretionary
promotion
system
properly
analyzed
disparate
treatment
model
rather
disparate
impact
model
courts
appeals
held
disparate
impact
analysis
may
applied
hiring
promotion
systems
involve
use
discretionary
subjective
criteria
see
atonio
wards
cove
packing
en
banc
return
panel
cert
denied
cert
pending
griffin
carlin
cf
segar
smith
app
cert
denied
granted
certiorari
resolve
conflict
ii
section
civil
rights
act
provides
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
fail
refuse
hire
discharge
individual
otherwise
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
limit
segregate
classify
employees
applicants
employment
way
deprive
tend
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
otherwise
adversely
affect
status
employee
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
notwithstanding
provision
subchapter
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
give
act
upon
results
professionally
developed
ability
test
provided
test
administration
action
upon
results
designed
intended
used
discriminate
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
griggs
duke
power
held
plaintiff
need
necessarily
prove
intentional
discrimination
order
establish
employer
violated
certain
cases
facially
neutral
employment
practices
significant
adverse
effects
protected
groups
held
violate
act
without
proof
employer
adopted
practices
discriminatory
intent
factual
issues
character
evidence
inevitably
somewhat
different
plaintiff
exempted
need
prove
intentional
discrimination
see
burdine
supra
see
also
postal
service
bd
governors
aikens
supra
mcdonnell
douglas
teamsters
supra
evidence
disparate
impact
cases
usually
focuses
statistical
disparities
rather
specific
incidents
competing
explanations
disparities
distinguishing
features
factual
issues
typically
dominate
disparate
impact
cases
imply
ultimate
legal
issue
different
cases
disparate
treatment
analysis
used
see
washington
davis
stevens
concurring
think
appropriate
hold
defendant
liable
unintentional
discrimination
basis
less
evidence
required
prove
intentional
discrimination
rather
necessary
premise
disparate
impact
approach
employment
practices
adopted
without
deliberately
discriminatory
motive
may
operation
functionally
equivalent
intentional
discrimination
perhaps
obvious
examples
functional
equivalence
found
facially
neutral
job
requirements
necessarily
operated
perpetuate
effects
intentional
discrimination
occurred
title
vii
enacted
griggs
example
employer
history
overt
racial
discrimination
predated
enactment
civil
rights
act
conduct
apparently
ceased
thereafter
employer
continued
follow
employment
policies
markedly
disproportionate
adverse
effect
blacks
cf
teamsters
supra
griggs
found
policies
involved
use
general
aptitude
tests
high
school
diploma
requirement
demonstrably
related
jobs
used
believing
diplomas
tests
become
masters
reality
perpetuate
effects
discrimination
concluded
practices
defended
simply
basis
facial
neutrality
basis
employer
lack
discriminatory
intent
repeatedly
reaffirmed
principle
facially
neutral
employment
practices
may
violate
title
vii
even
absence
demonstrated
discriminatory
intent
limited
principle
cases
challenged
practice
served
perpetuate
effects
intentional
discrimination
subsequent
decisions
however
like
griggs
involved
standardized
employment
tests
criteria
see
albemarle
paper
moody
written
aptitude
tests
washington
davis
supra
written
test
verbal
skills
dothard
rawlinson
height
weight
requirements
new
york
city
transit
authority
beazer
rule
employing
drug
addicts
connecticut
teal
written
examination
contrast
consistently
used
conventional
disparate
treatment
theory
proof
intent
discriminate
required
review
hiring
promotion
decisions
based
exercise
personal
judgment
application
inherently
subjective
criteria
see
mcdonnell
douglas
green
supra
discretionary
decision
rehire
individual
engaged
criminal
acts
employer
laid
furnco
construction
waters
hiring
decisions
based
personal
knowledge
candidates
recommendations
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
supra
discretionary
decision
fire
individual
said
get
along
postal
service
bd
governors
aikens
discretionary
promotion
decision
decisions
addressed
question
whether
disparate
impact
analysis
may
applied
cases
subjective
criteria
used
make
employment
decisions
noted
courts
appeals
conflict
issue
order
resolve
conflict
must
determine
whether
reasons
support
use
disparate
impact
analysis
apply
subjective
employment
practices
whether
analysis
applied
new
context
workable
evidentiary
standards
parties
present
us
stark
uninviting
alternatives
petitioner
contends
subjective
selection
methods
least
likely
discriminatory
effects
kind
objective
tests
issue
griggs
disparate
impact
cases
furthermore
argues
disparate
impact
analysis
confined
objective
tests
employers
able
substitute
subjective
criteria
substantially
identical
effects
griggs
become
dead
letter
respondent
appearing
amicus
curiae
argue
conventional
disparate
treatment
analysis
adequate
accomplish
congress
purpose
enacting
title
vii
also
argue
subjective
selection
practices
impossibly
difficult
defend
disparate
impact
analysis
employers
forced
adopt
numerical
quotas
order
avoid
liability
persuaded
decisions
griggs
succeeding
cases
largely
nullified
disparate
impact
analysis
applied
standardized
selection
practices
however
one
might
distinguish
subjective
objective
criteria
apparent
selection
systems
combine
types
generally
considered
subjective
nature
thus
example
employer
griggs
consistently
preferred
applicants
high
school
diploma
passed
company
general
aptitude
test
selection
system
nonetheless
considered
subjective
also
included
brief
interviews
candidates
long
employer
refrained
making
standardized
criteria
absolutely
determinative
remain
free
give
tests
almost
much
weight
chose
without
risking
disparate
impact
challenge
announced
rule
allowed
employers
easily
insulate
liability
griggs
disparate
impact
analysis
might
effectively
abolished
also
persuaded
disparate
impact
analysis
principle
less
applicable
subjective
employment
criteria
objective
standardized
tests
either
case
facially
neutral
practice
adopted
without
discriminatory
intent
may
effects
indistinguishable
intentionally
discriminatory
practices
true
sure
employer
policy
leaving
promotion
decisions
unchecked
discretion
lower
level
supervisors
raise
inference
discriminatory
conduct
especially
relatively
small
businesses
like
respondent
may
customary
quite
reasonable
simply
delegate
employment
decisions
employees
familiar
jobs
filled
candidates
jobs
follow
however
particular
supervisors
discretion
delegated
always
act
without
discriminatory
intent
furthermore
even
one
assumed
discrimination
adequately
policed
disparate
treatment
analysis
problem
subconscious
stereotypes
prejudices
remain
case
example
petitioner
apparently
told
one
point
teller
position
big
responsibility
lot
money
blacks
count
app
remarks
may
prove
discriminatory
intent
suggest
lingering
form
problem
title
vii
enacted
combat
employer
undisciplined
system
subjective
decisionmaking
precisely
effects
system
pervaded
impermissible
intentional
discrimination
difficult
see
title
vii
proscription
discriminatory
actions
apply
circumstances
employer
practices
may
said
adversely
affect
individual
status
employee
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
conclude
accordingly
subjective
discretionary
employment
practices
may
analyzed
disparate
impact
approach
appropriate
cases
decided
disparate
impact
analysis
may
principle
applied
subjective
well
objective
practices
turn
evidentiary
standards
apply
cases
concerns
raised
respondent
greatest
force
respondent
contends
plaintiff
may
establish
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
use
bare
statistics
defendant
rebut
statistical
showing
justifying
challenged
practice
terms
business
necessity
griggs
job
relatedness
albemarle
paper
standardized
tests
criteria
like
issue
previous
disparate
impact
cases
often
justified
formal
validation
studies
seek
determine
whether
discrete
selection
criteria
predict
actual
performance
see
generally
respondent
warns
however
validating
subjective
selection
criteria
way
impracticable
qualities
example
common
sense
good
judgment
originality
ambition
loyalty
tact
measured
accurately
standardized
testing
techniques
moreover
success
many
jobs
qualities
crucial
measured
directly
opinions
often
differ
managers
supervisors
evaluated
said
many
jobs
involve
close
cooperation
one
complex
subtle
tasks
like
provision
professional
services
personal
counseling
difficulties
told
employers
find
impossible
eliminate
subjective
selection
criteria
impossibly
expensive
defend
practices
litigation
respondent
insists
agrees
employers
alternative
adopt
surreptitious
quota
systems
order
ensure
plaintiff
establish
statistical
prima
facie
case
agree
inevitable
focus
statistics
disparate
impact
cases
put
undue
pressure
employers
adopt
inappropriate
prophylactic
measures
completely
unrealistic
assume
unlawful
discrimination
sole
cause
people
failing
gravitate
jobs
employers
accord
laws
chance
see
sheet
metal
workers
eeoc
concurring
part
dissenting
part
equally
unrealistic
suppose
employers
eliminate
discover
explain
myriad
innocent
causes
may
lead
statistical
imbalances
composition
work
forces
congress
specifically
provided
employers
required
avoid
disparate
impact
nothing
contained
title
vii
shall
interpreted
require
employer
grant
preferential
treatment
individual
group
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
individual
group
account
imbalance
may
exist
respect
total
number
percentage
persons
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
employed
employer
comparison
total
number
percentage
persons
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
community
state
section
area
available
work
force
community
state
section
area
believe
disparate
impact
theory
need
chilling
effect
legitimate
business
practices
recognize
however
today
extension
theory
context
subjective
selection
practices
increase
risk
employers
given
incentives
adopt
quotas
engage
preferential
treatment
congress
clearly
emphatically
expressed
intent
title
vii
lead
result
think
imperative
explain
detail
evidentiary
standards
apply
cases
serve
adequate
safeguards
danger
congress
recognized
previous
decisions
offer
guidance
today
extension
disparate
impact
analysis
calls
fresh
somewhat
closer
examination
constraints
operate
keep
analysis
within
proper
bounds
first
note
plaintiff
burden
establishing
prima
facie
case
goes
beyond
need
show
statistical
disparities
employer
work
force
plaintiff
must
begin
identifying
specific
employment
practice
challenged
although
relatively
easy
challenges
standardized
tests
may
sometimes
difficult
subjective
selection
criteria
issue
especially
cases
employer
combines
subjective
criteria
use
rigid
standardized
rules
tests
plaintiff
view
responsible
isolating
identifying
specific
employment
practices
allegedly
responsible
observed
statistical
disparities
cf
connecticut
teal
employment
practice
issue
identified
causation
must
proved
plaintiff
must
offer
statistical
evidence
kind
degree
sufficient
show
practice
question
caused
exclusion
applicants
jobs
promotions
membership
protected
group
formulations
never
framed
terms
rigid
mathematical
formula
consistently
stressed
statistical
disparities
must
sufficiently
substantial
raise
inference
causation
griggs
example
examined
requirements
operate
disqualify
negroes
substantially
higher
rate
white
applicants
similarly
said
albemarle
paper
plaintiffs
required
show
tests
question
select
applicants
hire
promotion
racial
pattern
significantly
different
pool
applicants
later
cases
framed
test
similar
terms
see
washington
davis
hiring
promotion
practices
disqualifying
substantially
disproportionate
numbers
blacks
dothard
employment
standards
select
applicants
hire
significantly
discriminatory
pattern
beazer
statistical
evidence
showing
employment
practice
effect
denying
members
one
race
equal
access
employment
opportunities
teal
supra
significantly
discriminatory
impact
courts
defendants
obliged
assume
plaintiffs
statistical
evidence
reliable
employer
discerns
fallacies
deficiencies
data
offered
plaintiff
free
adduce
countervailing
evidence
dothard
see
also
rehnquist
concurring
result
concurring
part
defendants
title
vii
suit
believe
reason
discredit
plaintiffs
statistics
appear
face
opportunity
challenge
available
defendants
lawsuit
may
endeavor
impeach
reliability
statistical
evidence
may
offer
rebutting
evidence
may
disparage
arguments
briefs
probative
weight
plaintiffs
evidence
accorded
without
attempting
catalog
weaknesses
may
found
evidence
may
note
typical
examples
include
small
incomplete
data
sets
inadequate
statistical
techniques
see
fudge
providence
fire
similarly
statistics
based
applicant
pool
containing
individuals
lacking
minimal
qualifications
job
little
probative
value
see
hazelwood
school
dist
roper
comparison
racial
composition
employer
teaching
staff
racial
composition
qualified
public
school
teacher
population
relevant
labor
market
omitted
kinds
deficiencies
facially
plausible
statistical
evidence
may
emerge
facts
particular
cases
see
carroll
sears
roebuck
flaw
plaintiffs
proof
failure
establish
required
causal
connection
challenged
employment
practice
testing
discrimination
work
force
test
one
many
factors
decisions
hire
promote
fact
blacks
score
lower
automatically
result
disqualification
disproportionate
numbers
blacks
cases
involving
citation
omitted
contreras
los
angeles
probative
value
statistics
impeached
evidence
plaintiffs
failed
written
examination
disproportionately
high
rate
study
seriously
cert
denied
second
constraint
application
disparate
impact
theory
lies
nature
business
necessity
job
relatedness
defense
although
said
employer
burden
showing
given
requirement
must
manifest
relationship
employment
question
griggs
formulation
interpreted
implying
ultimate
burden
proof
shifted
defendant
contrary
ultimate
burden
proving
discrimination
protected
group
caused
specific
employment
practice
remains
plaintiff
times
thus
plaintiff
made
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
defendant
met
burden
producing
evidence
employment
practices
based
legitimate
business
reasons
plaintiff
must
show
tests
selection
devices
without
similarly
undesirable
racial
effect
also
serve
employer
legitimate
interest
efficient
trustworthy
workmanship
albemarle
paper
citation
omitted
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
factors
cost
burdens
proposed
alternative
selection
devices
relevant
determining
whether
equally
effective
challenged
practice
serving
employer
legitimate
business
goals
factors
also
relevant
determining
whether
challenged
practice
operated
functional
equivalent
pretext
discriminatory
treatment
cf
ibid
cases
make
clear
employers
required
even
defending
standardized
objective
tests
introduce
formal
validation
studies
showing
particular
criteria
predict
actual
performance
beazer
example
considered
obvious
legitimate
employment
goals
safety
efficiency
permitted
exclusion
methadone
users
employment
new
york
city
transit
authority
indicated
manifest
relationship
test
satisfied
even
respect
jobs
legitimate
goals
significantly
served
exclusionary
rule
issue
case
even
though
rule
required
goals
similarly
washington
davis
held
job
relatedness
requirement
satisfied
employer
demonstrated
written
test
related
success
police
training
academy
wholly
aside
test
possible
relationship
actual
performance
police
officer
see
also
stevens
concurring
matter
law
permissible
police
department
use
test
purpose
predicting
ability
master
training
program
even
test
otherwise
predict
ability
perform
job
context
subjective
discretionary
employment
decisions
employer
often
find
easier
case
standardized
tests
produce
evidence
manifest
relationship
employment
question
many
jobs
example
involving
managerial
responsibilities
require
personal
qualities
never
considered
amenable
standardized
testing
evaluating
claims
discretionary
employment
practices
insufficiently
related
legitimate
business
purposes
must
borne
mind
ourts
generally
less
competent
employers
restructure
business
practices
unless
mandated
congress
attempt
furnco
construction
waters
see
also
zahorik
cornell
university
criteria
used
university
award
tenure
however
difficult
apply
however
much
disagreement
generate
particular
cases
job
related
radical
interpretation
title
vii
enjoin
use
historically
settled
process
plainly
relevant
criteria
largely
lead
decisions
difficult
review
sum
high
standards
proof
disparate
impact
cases
sufficient
view
avoid
giving
employers
incentives
modify
normal
legitimate
practices
introducing
quotas
preferential
treatment
iii
granted
certiorari
determine
whether
properly
held
disparate
impact
analysis
inapplicable
subjective
discretionary
promotion
system
hold
analysis
may
applied
express
opinion
rulings
appeals
neither
district
appeals
evaluated
statistical
evidence
determine
whether
petitioner
made
prima
facie
case
discriminatory
promotion
practices
disparate
impact
theory
may
relevant
data
base
small
permit
meaningful
statistical
analysis
leave
appeals
decide
first
instance
basis
record
principles
announced
today
whether
case
resolved
without
proceedings
district
judgment
appeals
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
concurrences
agree
first
time
approve
use
disparate
impact
analysis
evaluating
subjective
selection
practices
unlike
justice
stevens
believe
step
requires
us
provide
lower
courts
appropriate
evidentiary
guidelines
previously
done
disparate
treatment
cases
moreover
believe
verbal
formulation
used
prior
opinions
describe
evidentiary
standards
disparate
impact
cases
automatically
applicable
light
today
decision
cf
post
blackmun
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
congress
expressly
provided
title
vii
read
require
preferential
treatment
numerical
quotas
congressional
mandate
requires
view
decision
extend
reach
disparate
impact
theory
accompanied
safeguards
result
congress
clearly
said
intend
faced
task
applying
general
statements
particular
cases
lower
courts
sometimes
looked
specific
direction
eeoc
uniform
guidelines
employee
selection
procedures
cfr
pt
see
bushey
new
york
state
civil
service
cert
denied
firefighters
institute
louis
cert
denied
sub
nom
louis
guidelines
adopted
enforcement
rule
adverse
impact
ordinarily
inferred
unless
members
particular
race
sex
ethnic
group
selected
rate
less
rate
group
highest
rate
selected
cfr
enforcement
standard
criticized
technical
grounds
see
boardman
vining
role
probative
statistics
employment
discrimination
cases
law
contemp
pp
shoben
differential
rates
employment
testing
statistical
proof
title
vii
harv
rev
provided
rule
thumb
courts
see
clady
county
los
angeles
cert
denied
courts
also
referred
standard
deviation
analysis
sometimes
used
cases
see
rivera
wichita
falls
citing
casteneda
castaneda
partida
guardians
association
new
york
city
police
dept
civil
service
new
york
cert
denied
emphasized
useful
role
statistical
methods
title
vii
cases
suggested
particular
number
standard
deviations
determine
whether
plaintiff
made
prima
facie
case
complex
area
employment
discrimination
see
hazelwood
school
dist
consensus
developed
around
alternative
mathematical
standard
instead
courts
appear
generally
judged
significance
substantiality
numerical
disparities
basis
see
clady
supra
schlei
grossman
employment
discrimination
law
ed
supp
least
stage
law
development
believe
approach
properly
reflects
recognition
statistics
come
infinite
variety
usefulness
depends
surrounding
facts
circumstances
teamsters
justice
blackmun
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
agree
analysis
may
applied
claims
discrimination
caused
subjective
discretionary
selection
processes
therefore
join
parts
iii
opinion
concerned
however
plurality
mischaracterizes
nature
burdens
allocated
proving
rebutting
claims
plurality
projects
application
analysis
subjective
employment
practices
find
inconsistent
proper
evidentiary
standards
central
purpose
title
vii
therefore
join
parts
write
separately
reiterate
thought
prior
cases
made
plain
nature
claims
brought
within
framework
plurality
discussion
allocation
burdens
proof
production
apply
litigating
claim
title
vii
civil
rights
act
stat
amended
et
flatly
contradicted
cases
plurality
course
correct
initial
burden
proof
borne
plaintiff
must
establish
form
numerical
showing
facially
neutral
hiring
practice
select
applicants
significantly
discriminatory
pattern
dothard
rawlinson
cases
make
clear
however
contrary
plurality
assertion
ante
plaintiff
successfully
establishes
prima
facie
case
shifts
burden
proof
production
defendant
establish
employment
practice
question
business
necessity
see
albemarle
paper
moody
employer
must
meet
burden
proving
tests
job
related
dothard
rawlinson
employer
must
prov
challenged
requirements
job
related
griggs
duke
power
congress
placed
employer
burden
showing
given
requirement
must
manifest
relationship
employment
question
emphasis
added
quotation
plurality
suggested
allocation
burdens
bears
closer
resemblance
allocation
burdens
established
claims
mcdonnell
douglas
green
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
established
claims
nothing
cases
supports
plurality
declaration
context
challenge
ultimate
burden
proving
discrimination
protected
group
caused
specific
employment
practice
remains
plaintiff
times
ante
striking
statement
echo
declaration
burdine
context
individual
claim
ultimate
burden
persuading
trier
fact
defendant
intentionally
discriminated
plaintiff
remains
times
plaintiff
attempting
mimic
allocation
burdens
established
different
context
individual
claims
plurality
turns
blind
eye
crucial
distinctions
two
forms
claims
violation
alleged
challenge
focuses
exclusively
intent
employer
see
teamsters
challenge
roof
discriminatory
motive
critical
unless
proved
employer
intended
disfavor
plaintiff
membership
protected
class
claim
fails
claim
contrast
focuses
effect
employment
practice
see
claims
involve
employment
practices
facially
neutral
treatment
different
groups
fact
fall
harshly
one
group
another
unless
employment
practice
producing
disparate
effect
justified
business
necessity
violates
title
vii
good
intent
absence
discriminatory
intent
redeem
employment
procedures
testing
mechanisms
operate
headwinds
minority
groups
griggs
duke
power
mcdonnell
douglas
burdine
formulated
scheme
burden
allocation
designed
progressively
sharpen
inquiry
elusive
factual
question
intentional
discrimination
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
plaintiff
initial
burden
establishing
prima
facie
case
disparate
treatment
onerous
raises
inference
discrimination
presume
acts
otherwise
unexplained
likely
based
consideration
impermissible
factors
furnco
construction
waters
employer
may
rebut
presumption
asserts
plaintiff
rejection
based
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
produces
evidence
sufficient
rais
genuine
issue
fact
whether
discriminated
plaintiff
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
employer
satisfies
burden
production
factual
inquiry
proceeds
new
level
specificity
plaintiff
prove
proffered
reason
pretext
discrimination
allocation
burdens
reflects
unwillingness
require
trial
presume
basis
facts
establishing
prima
facie
case
employer
intended
discriminate
face
evidence
suggesting
plaintiff
rejection
might
justified
nondiscriminatory
reason
prima
facie
case
therefore
insufficient
shift
burden
proving
lack
discriminatory
intent
defendant
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
established
showing
significant
statistical
disparity
notably
different
unlike
claim
intentional
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
factors
establish
inference
disparate
impact
caused
employment
practice
directly
established
numerical
disparity
employment
practice
shown
discriminatory
consequences
employer
escape
liability
persuades
selection
process
producing
disparity
manifest
relationship
employment
question
connecticut
teal
quoting
griggs
duke
power
plaintiff
case
already
proved
employment
practice
improper
effect
employer
prove
discriminatory
effect
justified
intertwined
plurality
suggestion
defendant
burden
establishing
business
necessity
merely
one
production
implication
defendant
may
satisfy
burden
simply
producing
evidence
employment
practices
based
legitimate
business
reasons
ante
echo
cases
unmistakable
context
enough
employer
articulate
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
allegedly
discriminatory
act
order
rebut
presumption
intentional
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
plurality
misses
key
distinction
employer
accused
discriminating
intentionally
need
dispute
intent
offering
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
justification
justification
simply
enough
legitimize
practice
effect
excluding
protected
class
job
opportunities
significantly
disproportionate
rate
cases
since
griggs
make
clear
effect
runs
afoul
title
vii
unless
necessary
safe
efficient
job
performance
dothard
rawlinson
see
also
nashville
gas
satty
issue
whether
company
business
necessitates
adoption
particular
leave
policies
griggs
duke
power
ny
given
requirement
must
manifest
relationship
employment
question
emphasis
added
precisely
constitutes
business
necessity
reduced
course
scientific
formula
necessarily
involves
judgment
must
take
account
nature
particular
business
job
question
term
however
goes
long
way
toward
establishing
limits
defense
justified
business
necessity
employment
criterion
must
bear
indirect
minimal
relationship
job
performance
see
dothard
rawlinson
absent
proof
height
weight
requirements
directly
correlated
amount
strength
deemed
essential
good
job
performance
requirements
justified
business
necessity
albemarle
paper
moody
quoting
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
uniform
guidelines
employee
selection
procedures
cfr
message
guidelines
griggs
case
discriminatory
tests
impermissible
unless
shown
professionally
acceptable
methods
predictive
significantly
correlated
important
elements
work
behavior
comprise
relevant
job
cf
washington
davis
title
vii
litigation
involves
probing
judicial
review
less
deference
seemingly
reasonable
acts
employers
appropriate
constitution
special
racial
impact
without
discriminatory
purpose
claimed
criterion
must
directly
relate
prospective
employee
ability
perform
job
effectively
even
employer
proves
particular
selection
process
sufficiently
job
related
process
question
may
still
determined
unlawful
plaintiff
persuades
selection
processes
lesser
discriminatory
effect
also
suitably
serve
employer
business
needs
albemarle
paper
moody
sum
griggs
progeny
employer
matter
well
intended
liable
title
vii
relies
upon
process
disadvantages
protected
class
unless
process
shown
necessary
fulfill
legitimate
business
requirements
plurality
suggestion
employer
bear
burden
making
showing
squared
prior
cases
ii
also
concerned
unless
elaborated
upon
plurality
projection
analysis
applied
processes
may
prove
misleading
plurality
suggests
context
subjective
discretionary
employment
decisions
employer
often
find
easier
case
standardized
tests
produce
evidence
manifest
relationship
employment
question
ante
statement
warrants
comment
two
respects
explained
established
selection
method
significantly
disparate
impact
protected
class
clearly
enough
employer
merely
produce
evidence
method
selection
job
related
employer
obligation
persuade
reviewing
fact
formal
validation
techniques
endorsed
eeoc
uniform
guidelines
may
sometimes
effective
measuring
processes
variety
methods
available
establishing
link
selection
processes
job
performance
devices
see
cfr
selection
procedure
disparate
impact
formally
validated
employer
justify
continued
use
procedure
accord
federal
law
cf
washington
davis
hiring
promotion
practices
validated
one
several
ways
proper
means
establishing
business
necessity
vary
type
size
business
question
well
particular
job
selection
process
employed
courts
recognized
results
studies
see
davis
dallas
nationwide
studies
reports
showing
requirement
cert
denied
presentation
expert
testimony
criminal
justice
scholars
testimony
explaining
requirement
psychologist
testimony
explaining
prohibition
recent
marijuana
use
prior
successful
experience
zahorik
cornell
university
generations
experience
reflecting
decentralized
decisionmaking
structure
based
peer
judgments
academic
setting
used
appropriate
circumstances
establish
business
necessity
moreover
employer
complies
eeoc
recordkeeping
requirements
cfr
keeps
track
effect
practices
protected
classes
better
prepared
document
correlation
employment
practices
successful
job
performance
required
title
vii
fact
always
established
mathematical
certainty
free
employer
burden
proof
rather
requires
trial
look
different
forms
evidence
assess
employer
claim
business
necessity
common
sense
surely
plays
part
assessment
reviewing
may
rely
employer
sense
normal
ante
substitute
neutral
assessment
evidence
presented
indeed
extent
employer
normal
practices
serve
perpetuate
racially
disparate
status
quo
clearly
violate
title
vii
unless
shown
necessary
addition
normal
see
griggs
duke
power
ractices
procedures
tests
neutral
face
even
neutral
terms
intent
maintained
operate
freeze
discriminatory
status
quo
plurality
prediction
employer
often
find
easier
ante
justify
use
subjective
practices
business
necessity
difficult
analyze
abstract
nevertheless
bears
noting
statement
read
consistently
title
vii
principles
lessen
employer
burden
justifying
employment
practice
produces
disparate
impact
simply
practice
relies
upon
subjective
assessments
indeed
less
defined
particular
criteria
involved
system
relied
upon
assess
criteria
difficult
may
reviewing
assess
connection
selection
process
job
performance
cf
albemarle
paper
moody
validation
mechanism
fails
identify
whether
criteria
actually
considered
sufficiently
related
employer
legitimate
interest
ability
establish
test
question
sufficiently
job
related
example
case
bank
supervisors
given
complete
unguided
discretion
evaluating
applicants
promotions
question
petitioner
successfully
establish
respondent
hiring
practice
disfavored
black
applicants
significant
extent
bald
assertion
purely
discretionary
selection
process
allowed
respondent
discover
best
people
job
without
evidentiary
support
enough
prove
allowing
employer
escape
liability
simply
articulating
vague
subjective
criteria
disserve
title
vii
goal
eradicating
discrimination
employment
make
sense
establish
general
rule
whereby
employer
easily
establish
business
necessity
employment
practice
left
assessment
list
general
character
qualities
hirer
discretion
practice
consisting
evaluation
various
objective
criteria
carefully
tailored
measure
relevant
job
qualifications
rule
encourage
employers
abandon
attempts
construct
selection
mechanisms
subject
neutral
application
shelter
vague
generalities
subjective
criteria
like
objective
criteria
sometimes
pose
difficult
problems
charged
assessing
relationship
selection
process
job
performance
fact
cases
require
courts
develop
greater
factual
record
perhaps
exercise
greater
degree
judgment
dictate
processes
generally
accepted
face
value
long
strike
reviewing
normal
legitimate
ante
griggs
teaches
employment
practices
fair
form
discriminatory
operation
tolerated
title
vii
lesson
forgotten
simply
fair
form
subjective
one
bears
noting
question
granted
certiorari
question
presented
petitioner
brief
whether
analysis
applies
subjective
practices
burdens
fall
analysis
applies
plurality
need
reached
discussion
burden
allocation
evidentiary
standards
resolve
question
presented
however
find
necessary
reach
issue
order
respond
remarks
made
plurality
quarrel
plurality
characterization
plaintiff
burden
establishing
disparity
significant
see
ante
see
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
recognizing
context
articulating
allocation
burdens
applicable
claims
factual
issues
therefore
character
evidence
presented
differ
plaintiff
claims
facially
neutral
employment
policy
discriminatory
impact
protected
classes
postal
service
bd
governors
aikens
consistently
distinguished
cases
cases
involving
facially
neutral
employment
standards
disparate
impact
minority
applicants
mcdonnell
douglas
green
explained
plaintiff
meet
burden
establishing
prima
facie
case
racial
discrimination
showing
belongs
racial
minority
ii
applied
qualified
job
employer
seeking
applicants
iii
despite
qualifications
rejected
iv
rejection
position
remained
open
employer
continued
seek
applicants
persons
complainant
qualifications
american
psychological
association
standards
educational
psychological
testing
relied
upon
eeoc
uniform
guidelines
submitted
brief
amicus
curiae
explaining
devices
fact
amenable
psychometric
scrutiny
objective
screening
devices
written
tests
brief
american
psychological
association
amicus
curiae
see
also
bartholet
application
title
vii
jobs
high
places
harv
rev
discussing
feasibility
validating
subjective
hiring
assessments
corollary
course
title
vii
plaintiff
attack
employer
offer
proof
presenting
contrary
evidence
including
proof
employer
hiring
methods
failed
fact
screen
qualities
identified
central
successful
job
performance
case
example
petitioner
produce
evidence
kevin
brown
one
white
employees
chosen
promotion
allegedly
part
greater
supervisory
experience
proved
totally
unqualified
position
app
six
months
brown
promoted
performance
evaluated
close
competent
record
resigned
soon
thereafter
allegedly
pressure
questioned
whether
poor
communication
inadequate
training
personality
rendered
unqualified
job
one
hiring
supervisors
testified
never
given
guidelines
instructions
hiring
promotion
decisions
app
another
testified
attribute
specific
weight
particular
factors
considered
promotion
decisions
fifty
hundred
things
might
enter
decisions
establishment
business
necessity
necessarily
case
specific
unwilling
preclude
possibility
employer
ever
establish
successful
selection
among
applicants
required
granting
hirer
discretion
course
circumstances
employer
bear
burden
establishing
absence
specified
criteria
necessary
proper
functioning
business
see
atonio
wards
cove
packing
en
banc
subvert
purpose
title
vii
create
incentive
abandon
efforts
validate
objective
criteria
favor
purely
discretionary
hiring
methods
return
panel
cert
denied
cert
pending
miles
subjective
assessments
involving
white
supervisors
provide
ready
mechanism
racial
discrimination
cf
doverspike
barrett
alexander
feasibility
traditional
validation
procedures
demonstrating
law
psychology
rev
noting
litigious
climate
resulted
decline
use
tests
increase
subjective
methods
hiring
requirement
plaintiff
case
specify
employment
practice
responsible
statistical
disparity
turned
around
shield
liability
employer
whose
selection
process
poorly
defined
specific
criterion
identified
certainty
let
alone
connected
disparate
effect
cf
ante
plaintiff
responsible
isolating
identifying
specific
employment
practices
allegedly
responsible
observed
statistical
disparities
justice
stevens
concurring
judgment
question
granted
certiorari
decide
though
extremely
important
also
extremely
narrow
reads
follows
racially
adverse
impact
employer
practice
simply
committing
employment
decisions
unchecked
discretion
white
supervisory
corps
subject
test
griggs
duke
power
pet
cert