connecticut
teal
argued
march
decided
june
respondent
black
employees
connecticut
state
agency
promoted
provisionally
supervisors
attain
permanent
status
supervisors
participate
selection
process
required
first
step
passing
score
written
examination
subsequently
examination
given
black
white
candidates
percent
black
candidates
passed
approximately
percent
passing
rate
white
candidates
respondent
black
employees
failed
examination
thus
excluded
consideration
permanent
supervisory
positions
brought
action
federal
district
petitioners
state
connecticut
certain
state
agencies
officials
alleging
petitioners
violated
title
vii
civil
rights
act
requiring
absolute
condition
consideration
promotion
applicants
pass
written
test
disproportionately
excluded
blacks
job
related
meantime
trial
petitioners
made
promotions
eligibility
list
overall
result
percent
black
candidates
promoted
percent
white
candidates
petitioners
urged
result
favorable
blacks
whites
complete
defense
suit
district
agreed
entered
judgment
petitioners
holding
bottom
line
percentages
precluded
finding
title
vii
violation
petitioners
required
demonstrate
promotional
examination
job
related
appeals
reversed
holding
district
erred
ruling
examination
results
alone
insufficient
support
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
violation
title
vii
held
petitioners
nondiscriminatory
bottom
line
preclude
respondents
establishing
prima
facie
case
provide
petitioners
defense
case
pp
despite
petitioners
nondiscriminatory
bottom
line
respondents
claim
disparate
impact
examination
barrier
employment
opportunity
prima
facie
case
employment
discrimination
title
vii
makes
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
limit
segregate
classify
employees
way
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
measure
disparate
impact
bottom
line
ignores
fact
title
vii
guarantees
individual
black
respondents
opportunity
compete
equally
white
workers
basis
criteria
respondents
rights
violated
unless
petitioners
demonstrate
examination
question
artificial
arbitrary
unnecessary
barrier
measured
skills
related
effective
performance
supervisor
pp
special
discriminatory
tests
offered
title
vii
provides
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
act
upon
results
ability
test
test
designed
intended
used
discriminate
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
test
disparate
impact
used
limit
classify
employees
used
discriminate
within
meaning
title
vii
whether
designed
intended
effect
despite
employer
efforts
compensate
discriminatory
effect
pp
principal
focus
protection
individual
employee
rather
protection
minority
group
whole
suggest
bottom
line
may
defense
claim
discrimination
individual
employee
confuses
unlawful
discrimination
discriminatory
intent
resolution
factual
question
intent
issue
case
rather
petitioners
seek
justify
discrimination
black
respondents
basis
petitioners
favorable
treatment
members
respondents
racial
group
congress
never
intended
give
employer
license
discriminate
employees
basis
race
sex
merely
favorably
treats
members
employees
group
pp
brennan
delivered
opinion
white
marshall
blackmun
stevens
joined
powell
filed
dissenting
opinion
burger
rehnquist
joined
post
bernard
mcgovern
assistant
attorney
general
connecticut
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
carl
ajello
attorney
general
peter
gillies
deputy
attorney
general
robert
walsh
sidney
giber
thomas
clifford
iii
assistant
attorneys
general
thomas
bucci
argued
cause
respondents
brief
sidney
dworkin
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
solicitor
general
lee
assistant
attorney
general
reynolds
deputy
solicitor
general
wallace
harriet
shapiro
brian
landsberg
david
rose
joan
magagna
robert
williams
douglas
mcdowell
equal
employment
advisory
council
et
al
leonard
janofsky
paul
grossman
national
league
cities
et
al
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
albert
woll
robert
weinberg
michael
gottesman
laurence
gold
american
federation
labor
congress
industrial
organizations
richard
dinkelspiel
william
robinson
norman
chachkin
beatrice
rosenberg
lawyers
committee
civil
rights
law
justice
brennan
delivered
opinion
consider
whether
employer
sued
violation
title
vii
civil
rights
act
may
assert
theory
defense
theory
asserted
case
employer
acts
racial
discrimination
promotions
effected
examination
disparate
impact
render
employer
liable
racial
discrimination
suffered
employees
barred
promotion
result
promotional
process
appropriate
racial
balance
hold
bottom
line
preclude
respondent
employees
establishing
prima
facie
case
provide
petitioner
employer
defense
case
four
respondents
winnie
teal
rose
walker
edith
latney
grace
clark
black
employees
department
income
maintenance
state
connecticut
promoted
provisionally
position
welfare
eligibility
supervisor
served
capacity
almost
two
years
attain
permanent
status
supervisors
however
respondents
participate
selection
process
required
first
step
passing
score
written
examination
written
test
administered
december
candidates
candidates
identified
black
identified
white
results
examination
announced
march
passing
score
set
percent
identified
black
candidates
passed
approximately
percent
passing
rate
identified
white
candidates
four
respondents
among
blacks
failed
examination
thus
excluded
consideration
permanent
supervisory
positions
april
respondents
instituted
action
district
district
connecticut
petitioners
state
connecticut
two
state
agencies
two
state
officials
respondents
alleged
inter
alia
petitioners
violated
title
vii
imposing
absolute
condition
consideration
promotion
applicants
pass
written
test
excluded
blacks
disproportionate
numbers
job
related
year
action
instituted
approximately
one
month
trial
petitioners
made
promotions
eligibility
list
generated
written
examination
choosing
persons
list
petitioners
considered
past
work
performance
recommendations
candidates
supervisors
lesser
extent
seniority
petitioners
applied
appeals
characterized
program
order
ensure
significant
number
minority
supervisors
persons
promoted
permanent
supervisory
positions
black
white
overall
result
selection
process
identified
black
candidates
participated
selection
process
percent
promoted
identified
white
candidates
percent
promoted
result
favorable
blacks
whites
petitioners
urge
adjudged
complete
defense
respondents
suit
trial
district
entered
judgment
petitioners
app
pet
cert
treated
respondents
claim
one
disparate
impact
griggs
duke
power
albemarle
paper
moody
dothard
rawlinson
however
found
although
comparative
passing
rates
examination
indicated
prima
facie
case
adverse
impact
upon
minorities
result
entire
hiring
process
reflected
adverse
impact
holding
percentages
precluded
finding
title
vii
violation
held
employer
required
demonstrate
promotional
examination
job
related
app
pet
cert
appeals
second
circuit
reversed
holding
district
erred
ruling
result
written
examination
alone
insufficient
support
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
violation
title
vii
appeals
stated
identifiable
barrier
denies
employment
opportunity
disproportionately
large
number
minorities
prevents
proceeding
next
step
selection
process
barrier
must
shown
job
related
granted
certiorari
affirm
ii
must
first
decide
whether
examination
bars
disparate
number
black
employees
consideration
promotion
shown
job
related
presents
claim
cognizable
title
vii
section
title
vii
provides
pertinent
part
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
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
stat
amended
title
vii
proscribes
overt
discrimination
also
practices
fair
form
discriminatory
operation
touchstone
business
necessity
employment
practice
operates
exclude
negroes
shown
related
job
performance
practice
prohibited
griggs
recognized
enacting
title
vii
congress
required
removal
artificial
arbitrary
unnecessary
barriers
employment
professional
development
historically
encountered
women
blacks
well
minorities
see
also
dothard
rawlinson
supra
mcdonnell
douglas
green
explained
griggs
rightly
concerned
childhood
deficiencies
education
background
minority
citizens
resulting
forces
beyond
control
allowed
work
cumulative
invidious
burden
citizens
remainder
lives
relying
griggs
explicitly
focused
employment
practices
procedures
tests
deny
equal
employment
opportunity
concluded
title
vii
prohibits
procedures
testing
mechanisms
operate
headwinds
minority
groups
found
congress
primary
purpose
prophylactic
one
achieving
equality
employment
opportunities
removing
barriers
equality
see
albemarle
paper
moody
examination
given
respondents
case
surely
constituted
practice
created
barrier
conclusion
encompasses
respondents
claim
reinforced
terms
congress
extension
protections
title
vii
state
municipal
employees
see
supra
although
congress
explicitly
consider
viability
defense
offered
state
employer
case
amendments
title
vii
reflect
congress
intent
provide
state
municipal
employees
protection
title
vii
interpreted
griggs
provided
employees
private
sector
equality
opportunity
elimination
discriminatory
barriers
professional
development
committee
reports
floor
debates
stressed
need
equality
opportunity
minority
applicants
seeking
obtain
governmental
positions
cong
rec
remarks
williams
congress
voiced
concern
widespread
use
state
local
governmental
agencies
invalid
selection
techniques
discriminatory
impact
supra
cong
rec
remarks
perkins
decisions
following
griggs
also
support
respondents
claim
considering
claims
disparate
impact
consistently
focused
employment
promotion
requirements
create
discriminatory
bar
opportunities
never
read
requiring
focus
placed
instead
overall
number
minority
female
applicants
actually
hired
promoted
thus
dothard
rawlinson
found
minimum
statutory
height
weight
requirements
correctional
counselors
sort
arbitrary
barrier
equal
employment
opportunity
women
forbidden
title
vii
although
noted
passing
women
constituted
percent
labor
force
percent
correctional
counselor
positions
focus
bottom
line
focused
instead
disparate
effect
minimum
height
weight
standards
applicants
classifying
far
women
men
ineligible
employment
similarly
albemarle
paper
moody
supra
action
remanded
allow
employer
attempt
show
tests
given
employees
promotion
job
related
suggest
promoting
sufficient
number
black
employees
passed
examination
employer
avoid
burden
see
see
also
new
york
transit
authority
beazer
prima
facie
violation
act
may
established
statistical
evidence
showing
employment
practice
effect
denying
members
one
race
equal
access
employment
opportunities
emphasis
added
short
district
dismissal
respondents
claim
supported
basis
respondents
failed
establish
prima
facie
case
employment
discrimination
terms
suggestion
disparate
impact
measured
bottom
line
ignores
fact
title
vii
guarantees
individual
respondents
opportunity
compete
equally
white
workers
basis
criteria
title
vii
strives
achieve
equality
opportunity
rooting
artificial
arbitrary
unnecessary
barriers
professional
development
discriminatory
impact
upon
individuals
therefore
respondents
rights
violated
unless
petitioners
demonstrate
examination
given
artificial
arbitrary
unnecessary
barrier
measured
skills
related
effective
performance
role
welfare
eligibility
supervisor
brief
amicus
curiae
apparently
recognizes
respondents
claim
case
falls
within
affirmative
commands
title
vii
seeks
support
district
judgment
case
relying
defenses
provided
employer
section
provides
pertinent
part
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
stat
amended
sum
respondents
claim
disparate
impact
examination
barrier
employment
opportunity
prima
facie
case
employment
discrimination
despite
employer
nondiscriminatory
bottom
line
bottom
line
defense
prima
facie
case
iii
determined
respondents
claim
comes
within
terms
title
vii
must
address
suggestion
petitioners
amici
curiae
recognize
exception
either
nature
additional
burden
plaintiffs
seeking
establish
prima
facie
case
nature
affirmative
defense
cases
employer
compensated
discriminatory
barrier
hiring
promoting
sufficient
number
black
employees
reach
nondiscriminatory
bottom
line
reject
suggestion
essence
nothing
request
redefine
protections
guaranteed
title
vii
section
prohibits
practices
deprive
tend
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
principal
focus
statute
protection
individual
employee
rather
protection
minority
group
whole
indeed
entire
statute
legislative
history
replete
references
protection
individual
employee
see
stat
amended
cong
rec
interpretive
memorandum
sens
clark
case
discrimination
prohibited
individual
remarks
williams
every
man
must
judged
according
ability
respect
men
equal
opportunity
considered
particular
job
suggesting
bottom
line
may
defense
claim
discrimination
individual
employee
petitioners
amici
appear
confuse
unlawful
discrimination
discriminatory
intent
stated
bottom
line
employer
efforts
achieve
nondiscriminatory
work
force
might
cases
assist
employer
rebutting
inference
particular
action
intentionally
discriminatory
proof
work
force
racially
balanced
contained
disproportionately
high
percentage
minority
employees
wholly
irrelevant
issue
intent
issue
yet
decided
furnco
construction
waters
see
also
teamsters
resolution
factual
question
intent
issue
case
rather
petitioners
seek
simply
justify
discrimination
respondents
basis
favorable
treatment
members
respondents
racial
group
title
vii
racially
balanced
work
force
immunize
employer
liability
specific
acts
discrimination
furnco
construction
waters
clear
beyond
cavil
obligation
imposed
title
vii
provide
equal
opportunity
applicant
regardless
race
without
regard
whether
members
applicant
race
already
proportionately
represented
work
force
see
griggs
duke
power
mcdonald
santa
fe
trail
transportation
ibid
emphasis
original
petitioners
point
furnco
manhart
phillips
involved
facially
discriminatory
policies
claim
instant
case
one
discrimination
facially
neutral
policy
fact
remains
however
irrespective
form
taken
discriminatory
practice
employer
treatment
members
plaintiffs
group
little
comfort
victims
discrimination
teamsters
supra
title
vii
permit
victim
facially
discriminatory
policy
told
wronged
persons
race
sex
hired
answer
satisfactory
given
victims
policy
facially
neutral
practically
discriminatory
every
individual
employee
protected
discriminatory
treatment
practices
fair
form
discriminatory
operation
griggs
duke
power
requirements
tests
discriminatory
impact
merely
subtle
also
pervasive
practices
devices
fostered
racially
stratified
job
environments
disadvantage
minority
citizens
mcdonnell
douglas
green
iv
sum
petitioners
nondiscriminatory
bottom
line
answer
terms
title
vii
respondents
prima
facie
claim
employment
discrimination
accordingly
judgment
appeals
second
circuit
affirmed
case
remanded
district
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
black
respondents
joined
plaintiffs
four
white
employees
pendent
claim
written
test
violated
provisions
state
law
require
promotional
exams
job
related
claim
us
see
mean
score
examination
percent
however
black
candidates
mean
score
percentage
points
lower
white
candidates
passing
score
set
apparently
attempt
lessen
disparate
impact
examination
see
following
table
shows
passing
rates
various
candidate
groups
passing
candidate
receiving
rate
group
number
passing
score
total
petitioners
contest
district
implicit
finding
examination
resulted
disparate
impact
eighty
percent
rule
uniform
guidelines
employee
selection
procedures
adopted
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
see
app
pet
cert
guidelines
provide
selection
rate
less
percent
rate
group
highest
rate
generally
regarded
evidence
adverse
impact
cfr
petitioners
contest
characterization
selection
procedure
need
however
resolve
dispute
context
present
controversy
actual
promotion
rate
blacks
thus
close
percent
actual
promotion
rate
whites
petitioners
apparently
argue
nondiscriminatory
bottom
line
precluded
respondents
establishing
prima
facie
case
alternative
provided
defense
legislative
history
amendments
title
vii
stat
relevant
case
amendments
extended
protection
act
respondents
deleting
exemptions
state
municipal
employers
see
stat
history
demonstrates
congress
recognized
endorsed
analysis
employed
griggs
house
senate
reports
cited
griggs
approval
senate
report
noting
employment
discrimination
viewed
today
complex
pervasive
phenomenon
experts
familiar
subject
generally
describe
problem
terms
systems
effects
rather
simply
intentional
wrongs
contrast
language
protection
given
employees
applicants
title
vii
might
support
petitioners
exclusive
focus
overall
result
subsection
makes
unlawful
employment
practice
fail
refuse
hire
discharge
individual
otherwise
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
committee
reports
houses
senator
williams
principal
sponsor
senate
bill
ultimately
enacted
large
part
relied
upon
report
commission
civil
rights
senator
williams
placed
congressional
record
see
cong
rec
commission
concluded
serious
arriers
equal
opportunity
existed
state
local
government
employees
two
three
barriers
cited
recruitment
selection
devices
arbitrary
unrelated
job
performance
result
unequal
treatment
minorities
promotions
made
basis
criteria
unrelated
job
performance
discriminatory
supervisory
ratings
commission
civil
rights
people
people
report
equal
opportunity
state
local
government
employment
reprinted
cong
rec
government
brief
submitted
department
justice
shares
responsibility
federal
enforcement
title
vii
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
eeoc
declined
join
brief
see
brief
amicus
curiae
petitioners
suggest
defer
eeoc
guidelines
regard
nothing
guidelines
might
defer
aid
petitioners
case
support
petitioners
conceivably
muster
uniform
guidelines
employee
selection
procedures
cfr
pt
issued
jointly
eeoc
office
personnel
management
department
labor
department
justice
see
cfr
neutrality
question
whether
discriminatory
barrier
result
discriminatory
overall
result
constitutes
violation
title
vii
section
guidelines
relied
upon
petitioners
matter
administrative
prosecutorial
discretion
usual
circumstances
agencies
take
enforcement
action
based
upon
disparate
impact
component
selection
process
total
selection
process
results
adverse
impact
emphasis
added
agencies
made
clear
guidelines
address
underlying
question
law
individual
denied
job
particular
component
procedure
otherwise
meets
bottom
line
standard
retains
right
proceed
appropriate
agencies
federal
fed
reg
see
cfr
addition
publication
entitled
adoption
questions
answers
clarify
provide
common
interpretation
uniform
guidelines
employee
selection
procedures
agencies
stated
since
concept
rule
law
affect
discharge
eeoc
statutory
responsibilities
investigate
charges
discrimination
render
administrative
finding
investigation
engage
voluntary
conciliation
efforts
similarly
respect
issuing
agencies
bottom
line
concept
applies
processing
individual
charges
initiation
enforcement
action
fed
reg
past
decisions
sensitive
critical
difference
cases
proving
discrimination
title
vii
et
seq
ed
supp
iv
showing
disparate
treatment
discriminatory
intent
proving
discrimination
showing
disparate
impact
today
decision
blurs
distinction
results
holding
inconsistent
nature
claims
dissent
section
title
vii
provides
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
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
thus
cases
focus
way
individual
treated
cases
concerned
protected
group
key
distinction
explained
furnco
construction
waters
marshall
concurring
part
well
established
title
vii
claims
employment
discrimination
race
may
arise
two
different
ways
teamsters
individual
may
allege
subjected
disparate
treatment
race
victim
facially
neutral
practice
disparate
impact
racial
group
disregarding
distinction
drawn
cases
repeatedly
asserts
title
vii
designed
protect
individual
group
rights
emphasizes
individual
blacks
eliminated
disparate
impact
preliminary
test
argument
confuses
aim
title
vii
legal
theories
aims
intended
vindicated
true
aim
title
vii
protect
individuals
groups
advancing
commendable
objective
title
vii
jurisprudence
recognized
two
distinct
methods
proof
one
set
cases
involving
direct
proof
discriminatory
intent
plaintiff
seeks
establish
direct
intentional
discrimination
type
case
individual
forefront
throughout
entire
presentation
evidence
cases
contrast
plaintiff
seeks
carry
burden
proof
way
inference
showing
employer
selection
process
results
rejection
disproportionate
number
members
protected
group
belongs
showing
fair
inference
may
drawn
rejected
applicant
member
disproportionately
excluded
group
victim
process
headwinds
griggs
supra
method
proof
actually
defines
theory
title
vii
invites
plaintiff
prove
discrimination
reference
group
rather
allegedly
affected
individual
violation
title
vii
basis
disparate
impact
absence
disparate
impact
group
case
respondent
black
employees
seek
benefit
conflation
discriminatory
treatment
disparate
impact
theories
ways
undertaken
prove
discrimination
reference
one
set
group
figures
used
preliminary
point
selection
process
respondents
claim
nondiscrimination
proved
viewing
impact
entire
process
group
whole
fallacy
reasoning
accepted
transparent
confuse
individualistic
aim
title
vii
methods
proof
title
vii
rights
may
vindicated
respondents
individuals
entitled
full
personal
protection
title
vii
undertaken
prove
violation
rights
reference
group
figures
respondents
deny
petitioners
opportunity
rebut
evidence
introducing
figures
kind
pleaded
case
plaintiff
deny
defendant
opportunity
show
disparate
impact
appeals
third
circuit
noted
eeoc
greyhound
lines
violation
title
vii
grounded
disparate
impact
theory
without
proof
questioned
policy
practice
disproportionate
impact
employer
workforce
conclusion
obvious
tautological
disparate
impact
unless
ultimate
disparate
impact
ii
position
stronger
case
authority
logic
none
cases
relied
upon
controls
outcome
case
indeed
cases
even
support
propositions
cited
example
cites
dothard
rawlinson
holding
impermissible
minimum
statutory
height
weight
requirements
correctional
counselors
observes
lthough
noted
passing
women
constituted
percent
labor
force
percent
correctional
counselor
positions
focus
bottom
line
focused
instead
disparate
effect
minimum
height
weight
standards
applicants
classifying
far
women
men
ineligible
employment
ante
dothard
however
considering
case
difference
discriminatory
effect
employment
standard
number
minority
members
actually
hired
dothard
stated
establish
prima
facie
case
discrimination
plaintiff
need
show
facially
neutral
standards
question
select
applicants
hire
discriminatory
pattern
shown
employment
standards
discriminatory
effect
employer
must
meet
burden
showing
given
requirement
manifest
relationship
employment
question
emphasis
added
concedes
major
cases
relies
furnco
los
angeles
dept
water
power
manhart
phillips
martin
marietta
per
curiam
involved
facially
discriminatory
policies
claim
instant
case
one
discrimination
facially
neutral
policy
ante
nevertheless
applies
principles
derived
cases
case
bar
reiterating
view
title
vii
protects
individuals
groups
therefore
manner
employer
treated
members
group
defeat
claim
individual
suffered
result
even
facially
neutral
policy
appealing
sounds
confuses
distinction
uniformly
recognized
today
disparate
impact
disparate
treatment
see
supra
cases
cited
made
clear
claims
based
individual
treated
isolation
treatment
members
group
claims
necessarily
based
whether
group
fares
less
well
groups
policy
practice
test
indeed
one
minority
member
taken
test
claim
made
regardless
whether
test
initial
step
selection
process
one
several
factors
considered
employer
making
employment
decision
iii
today
decision
takes
long
unhappy
step
direction
confusion
title
vii
require
employers
adopt
merit
hiring
procedures
likely
permit
greatest
number
minority
members
considered
qualify
jobs
promotions
see
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
furnco
employers
need
develop
tests
accurately
reflect
skills
every
individual
candidate
tests
yet
seems
unaware
practical
reality
perhaps
oblivious
likely
consequences
decision
holding
today
may
force
employers
either
eliminate
tests
rely
expensive
testing
procedures
validity
may
may
sustained
challenged
state
local
governmental
employers
limited
funds
practical
effect
today
decision
may
well
adoption
simple
quota
hiring
arbitrary
method
employment
unfair
individual
applicants
whether
members
minority
groups
likely
produce
competent
work
force
moreover
decision
actually
may
result
employers
employing
fewer
minority
members
judge
newman
noted
brown
new
civil
service
board
supp
private
parties
permitted
title
vii
adopt
voluntary
affirmative
action
plans
title
vii
construed
prohibit
municipality
using
hiring
process
results
percentage
minority
policemen
approximating
percentage
local
population
instead
relying
expectation
validated
testing
procedure
produce
equivalent
result
yet
risk
might
lead
substantially
less
minority
hiring
see
also
teamsters
similar
explanation
see
dothard
rawlinson
statutory
height
weight
requirements
operated
bar
employment
disproportionate
number
women
albemarle
paper
moody
seniority
system
allegedly
locked
blacks
lower
paying
jobs
applicants
skilled
lines
progression
required
pass
two
tests
griggs
duke
power
tests
absolute
bar
transfers
hiring
observed
congress
requires
removal
artificial
arbitrary
unnecessary
barriers
employment
emphasis
added
initially
plaintiff
bears
burden
establishing
prima
facie
case
title
vii
infringed
see
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
case
burden
met
showing
employer
selection
process
results
rejection
disproportionate
number
members
protected
group
see
teamsters
supra
regardless
whether
plaintiff
prima
facie
case
must
focus
defendant
overall
selection
process
whether
sufficient
plaintiff
establish
least
one
barrier
resulted
disparate
impact
employer
presentation
evidence
showing
overall
selection
procedure
operate
discriminatory
fashion
certainly
dispels
inference
discrimination
instances
close
evidence
plaintiff
failed
show
disparate
impact
preponderance
evidence
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
federal
enforcement
agencies
adopted
principle
process
viewed
whole
deciding
bring
action
employer
see
uniform
guidelines
employee
selection
procedures
cfr
concentrates
cases
questionable
relevance
lower
courts
squarely
considered
question
concluded
violation
title
vii
basis
disparate
impact
bottom
line
see
eeoc
greyhound
lines
eeoc
navajo
refining
friend
leidinger
rule
international
assn
ironworkers
smith
troyan
cert
denied
williams
city
county
san
francisco
supp
nd
cal
brown
new
civil
service
board
supp
lee
city
richmond
supp
ed
cites
language
two
cases
notes
albemarle
paper
moody
remanded
allow
employer
attempt
show
tests
given
promotion
job
related
ante
fact
without
suggesting
promoting
sufficient
number
black
employees
passed
examination
employer
avoid
burden
hardly
precedent
negative
proposition
issue
neither
presented
facts
case
addressed
similarly
new
york
transit
authority
beazer
provides
little
support
despite
language
quoted
see
ante
quoting
prima
facie
violation
act
may
established
statistical
evidence
showing
employment
practice
effect
denying
members
one
race
equal
access
employment
opportunities
emphasis
added
beazer
ruled
statistical
evidence
actually
presented
insufficient
establish
prima
facie
case
discrimination
indicated
found
statistical
evidence
number
applicants
employees
methadone
program
quite
probative
see
beazer
therefore
justify
speculation
number
blacks
hispanics
actually
employed
irrelevant
whether
case
disparate
impact
established
title
vii
courts
recognized
probative
value
statistical
evidence
varies
sample
size
cases
see
teamsters
considerations
small
sample
size
may
course
detract
value
evidence
mayor
philadelphia
educational
equality
league
district
concern
smallness
sample
presented
panel
well
founded
rogillio
diamond
shamrock
chemical
supp
sd
tex
sample
small
dendy
washington
hospital
center
supp
dc
sample
must
large
enough
mirror
reality
employment
situation
sample
one
far
little
probative
value
establish
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
another
possibility
employers
may
integrate
consideration
test
results
one
overall
hiring
decision
based
factor
additional
factors
process
even
reasoning
result
finding
discrimination
basis
disparate
impact
unless
actual
hiring
decisions
disparate
impact
minority
group
employers
integrate
test
results
decision
free
select
number
minority
candidates
proportional
representation
work
force
petitioners
used
approach
able
hire
substantially
fewer
blacks
without
liability
basis
disparate
impact
hardly
intended
encourage