## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 07

- 2052 A RTHU R L. L EW IS, J R ., e tal ., P la intif fs-A pp ellees , v. C ITY OF C HI CAGO, I LLINO IS, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 98 C5596

—Jo an B. G ott schall, Ju dge
.
On Rem and fro m the Sup rem e Court ofthe Un it ed Stat es
A RG UE D M AR CH 29, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AY 13, 2011

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e , an d B AUERa nd P OSNER, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, C h i e

f Ju dge . In 199 5 the Ci ty ofChica go gave a w ri tte n exam i na tio n f orposi ti ons i n i ts Fi re Departm ent. A pp l i cants w ho s cor ed 89 an d up were ra ted hi ghl y qual i fi ed, wh i l e those wh o sco red 64 and bel ow2 N o. 07

- 2052

w er e r ate d not qual i fi ed . T h ose in bet w een were r ate d qu ali fi ed bu t w ere told in Janu ary 1996 that th e y w ere unli kel y t o be hire d. ( A pp l i cants al so w er e e val uated f or phy si ca l s k i l l s, c r i m i na l r ec o r ds, a nd o th erattribut es , b ut th ose do notm att erto thi s l i ti gat i on. ) Fr om M ay 1996 thro ugh N ove m ber20 01, the City hi re d 11 g ro up s o f ap p l i c an ts from th e w ell-q u alifie d p oo l. E ac h tim e it cho se a t r an do m fr o m tho se who ha d s co r ed 89 o r b et ter; i t di d not f ol l ow the co m m on ci vil-se rv i ce pr acti ce o f hi ri ng i n ra nk o rderfro m a l i st. I n M ar ch 1997 a perso n i n the quali fi ed pool fi l ed w i th th e EEOC a ch ar g e o fdi sc r i m i na ti o n. Thi s ch ar g e, the fi r s tt o be fi l e d, c o nt e nd e d tha tthe c ut o ffo f8 9 h a d a dispar ate i m pact o n A f rica n - A m er i can appl i cants. A fter re cei vi ng r i ght-t o- sue l ett er s fro m the age ncy, se ver al ap p li can ts fi led th is cl ass ac tion in 1998. Th e d istri ct cou rt co nc l ude d tha t th e fi r stc ha r g e w as ti m el y de spi te the f act that i t ca m e m or e than 300 days afte r m em ber s o f t he qua l i fi e d p o o l l e a r ne d tha tthe y we r e u nl i k e l y t o be hi r e d. T he Ci t y concede d tha tthe c ut o ffs c o r e c r e a t e d a dispar ate i m pact but contended that the se l ecti on cri ter i a were “j ob re l ate d fo r the position i n questi on a nd c o ns i s t e ntwi th b us i ne s s n e c e s s i t y ”

. 4 2 U. S

. C. § 2 0 0 0 e –2(k)(1) (A )( i)

. A fter a benc h trial, the d istri ct cou rt rej ec te d the Ci ty ’ s bus i ne ss - ne ce ss i tyde f en se . 2 00 5 U
. S. D ist . L EXIS4 2 5 4 4 (N .D . I ll. M ar . 22, 20 05 ). L at er it a wa r d e d r e l i e fth a ti n c l u d e d t h e h i r i n go f1 3 2 c l a s s me mb e r s a nd da m age s b a s e d o n the l o s s - o f

- a - c ha nc e a pp ro ac h . 200 7 U .S. D ist . L EXIS 2437 8 (N

. D
. I ll

. M ar. 20, 2007). Se e Dol l v . Br own , 75 F. 3d 1200 (7th Cir. 1996).N o. 07

- 2052 3 Chi ca g o ’ s appe alr ai se d onl y one ques ti o n: W he th erthe Ma r c h 1 9 9 7 c h a r g e o fd i s c r i mi n a t i o n w a s t i me l y . We f ound that i t w as not, because i t cam e m or e than 300 days aft er ap p lica n ts in t h e q u alifi e d p o ol lea rn ed n ot on ly that the e xam had a di spara te i m pact but al so that they w ere un li kely to be hired. 528 F. 3d 488 (7th C ir. 2008). T h e Su p re m e C ou rtrev er se d in t u rn , h old in g t h at in di spa r at e- i m pac t l i ti g at i o n the t i m e st ar ts a ne w w he neve r the e m plo yeruses a tes t ( oro therprac ti ce) to m ake hi r i ngde ci si o ns . 1 30 S

. Ct

. 2 19 1 (2010). Thi s m ade the M ar ch 199 7 char ge ti m el y with re spect to ea c h w ave of hi ri ng o therthan the fi rs t. The J us ti ce s i den ti fi ed two s ubj ec ts po te nt i al l y r equi r i ng att enti on o n re m and. One i s whethe r Ch i cago has preser ved i ts conte n ti on that the char ge ofdi scr i m i nati on was unt i m el y wi thr es pec t to the fi r sthi r i ngc l as s. The o th eri s whethe r Chi ca g o ha s pr es er ve d a n argument that the pl ai nti f f s f ai l ed to pro ve that any g i ven use o f the c u to ffsco re had a di spara te i m pact

— and, i fye s, whethe r tha t ar g um en t ca r r i es the da y . W e as k ed th e par ti es t o fi l e b rie f s o n tho se t o pi cs a nd he l d o r ala r g ume n tt o e x p l o r e th e m. The C ity pre ser ved i ts posi ti on o n both i ssues . I ts i ni ti al a ppel l at e br i efc o nt es te d the di st r i ctj udg e’ s co ncl usi on that the fi rs t char ge w as ti m el y; thatsubsum ed a c h alle n ge to th e ru lin g t h at th e c h ar ge w as tim ely wi thr es pec t to the fi r stb at cho fhi res inpa r ti cul ar . The dist ri ct j ud ge used a co nti nuing- vi ol atio n approac h th at lum ped al l hi r es t o g ethe r . Afte r o ur i ni ti alde ci si o n, p l a i n t i f f s ab a n do ne d th a ta p p r o a c h, w h i c h w a s i n c o m-4 N o. 07

- 2052 pat ibl e wi th N at i onal Rai l r oad Pass e nge rCorp. v. M organ , 53 6 U. S

. 101 ( 20 02 )

. Be ca us e th e di st r i ctc o ur t, a t pl ai nti f f s’ ur g i ng, ha d t r ea te d a l l wav es o fhi r i nga l i k e, the Ci tydi d no t ne ed to make s epa r ate ar g um en ts c o ncern ing eac h w a v e to bene fi t from the Su p rem e C ou rt’s concl usi on that each “use” of a pra cti ce m ust be anal yze d separ ate l y. A nd if, by treat i ng al l hi re s a l i ke i n the dist ri ct cour t, pl ai nti f f s hav e f ai l ed to est abl i sh thatany gi ven use o fthe hi r i ngc r i te r i a cr ea te d a di sparate i m pac t, the n the Cityi s en tit led to j ud gm ent in i ts f avo r. Li ti gants need not anti ci pate, o n pa in of f or f ei ture , ar gum ents never m ade unti l la te i n the l i ti gat i on ( i n thi s ca se, unti l pro ceed ings ha d reach ed the Su p rem e C ou rt). Thi s m ea ns tha t th e j udg m en t m us t be reverse d t o the ext e nttha tthe di s t r i c tc o ur tg r a nt e d r e l i e fa r i s i ngf ro m the fi rs t s et ofhi re s fro m the l i st . T h e charg e ca m e t oo l a t e t o c o n t e s t t h e s e e mpl o y me n t d e c i s i o n s , as t he S upr eme Co ur t st at ed. 1 30 S

. Ct

. a t 21 98
. T his is the only reli ef to w hich the C ity i s ent itl ed , how ever. A lthou gh it ha s p reserved a con ten tion th at p la in tiffs f ai l ed to es tabl i sh a dispar ate i m p ac t in any parti cul ar use o fthe l i st, thatco ntenti on i s s ubstanti vel y unava i l i ng. Recal l tha t the Ci ty con ced ed i n the dist ri ct c ourtthat t he c ut o f f s c o r e o f 8 9 ha d a di s pa r a t e i mp act on m i nor i ty appli cants. The o nl y i ssue conte ste d at t ri alwas w hether t he te st and i ts cutoffsco re were j ob- re l ate d and consi ste nt with busi ness necess i ty. Because Ch i cago sel ecte d at r andom fro m the w el l

- quali fi ed g ro up ( thos e w i th sc or es of89 and up), ea ch bat ch ofhi re s cr eat ed th e sa m e di sp ar at e i m pac t as the o ve r al l l i st
. Thi s m ea nsN o. 07

- 2052 5 th ate ac h us e o fthe t es t was e qua l l y v ul ne r ab l e to pl ai nti f f s’ c ha l l en g e; the r e was no di ff er en ce b etw eenc o nte st i ngthe l i sta s a whol e ( pl ai nt i ff s’ a ctua l st rate g y ) a nd conte sti ng each use of the l i st ( the approach ap prop riate un d er the Su p rem e C ou rt’s dec isi on). W e g ra nt the poss ibilit y that, by chance, o ne bat ch or an ot h er w o u ld n ot cr ea te a d isp ar at e im p ac t; in d ee d , i t is possibl e t h at chance would pro du ce a bat ch i n w hi ch m i nor i ty appli cants predom i nated. But the Citydoes not sa y t h at th is oc c u rre d , an d th e l a w o f larg e n u m b er s is ag ain stit. M or eo ve r, b ec au se t h e C ity h ire d from th e w ellq u alifie d p oo l un til it w as ex h au st e d , t h e 1 0 p ro p er ly ch al l en g ed “u se s” as a whol e m at ch ed th e po o l a nd had the s am e di spara te i m pact. I fo ne o r m or e o fthe 10 conte ste d hir i ng cl ass es departed m ate ri al l y fro m wh at a r an do m dr aw would be ex pec te d t o pr o duce , the Ci tys ho ul d ha ve po i nt ed th i s o ut ; i t ne ve r di d, s o pl ai nti f f s a re enti tl ed to the natura l i nfe re nc e that a l l cl ass es w er e a l i ke. If th e C ity h ad h ire d in r a n k or d er , as m an y c ivilser vi ce e m plo ye rs d o, thi ngs woul d have be en di ff er ent. Su p p os e a p p lica n ts w h o g ot 10 0 h ad be en h ire d in M ay 19 96, tho se w ho g ot 99 f our m onths l ate r, tho se w i th sc or es of98 f our m onths afte r th at , a nd so o n. Then i t woul d h ave be ene ss en ti alf o r pl ai nt i ff s an d the dist ri ct c ourtto ev al uate ea c h u se ofthe l i st separ ate l y. For i t i s possibl e that som e of these uses w ou ld not have produce d a dispar ate i m pact

— and, i fany gi ven b a n d of sc or es h ad an ad ve rs e e ffec t o n m in or ity ap p licants, i t m i ght h ave been eas i erf orthe em plo yerto6 N o. 07

- 2052 j us ti fy the pr ac ti ce . Pe rha p s i t woul d ha ve b ee n “ co nsi st en t w ith bu sine ss ne ce ss i ty ” to hi r e th o se who sco re d 100 ah ea d o f those w ho s cor ed 85, ev en i fi t was not necess ar y t o h ire those w ho s cor ed 90 ahead of thos e who sco re d 88
. But Chicag o did nothi re new fi r efi g ht er s i n r an korde r . Ev er y o ne who s co r ed 89 a nd up was tr eat ed al i ke; ev er yone wh o sco re d 6 5 to 88 w as tr eat ed al i ke. The Ci ty c on c ed ed that thi s di ff er ence cre ate d a dispar ate i m pact. The dist ri ct j ud ge f ou n d that the c utoffat89 was n ot ju stifi ed, and the Citydi d not appe altha t co nc l usion. The Ci ty ’ s co nc es si o n pl us the dist r i c tc o ur t ’ s u nc o nt e s t e d fi nd i ng s e s t a b l i s h a l l that i s r equi re d fo r the pl ai nti ff s t o preva i l o n the m er i ts. N ot so, Chica go conte nd s. I t o bserve s th at the fi rs t charg e w as fi l ed m or e than 300 days after the d ecis i on to adopt the cutoff sco re of 89. This m eans, th e C i ty m ai ntai ns, thati t was ent i tl ed to tr eatthe hi gh ly q ua li fi ed pool (generate d by ap p lyi ng the cu toff score to th e fu ll li st ) as la w fu l. A n d if th at p oo l w as law fu l, then e ach use of i t t o hi re a cl ass o ffi re fi ghter s m ust have b ee n l aw ful, the ar gum ent c oncl ud es. The pre m i se i s co r r ec t; de l ayi n fi l i ng th e ch ar g e m ea nttha t th e hi g hl y qu a l i fi e d p o o l i s b e y o n d l e g a l c h a l l e n g e . T he S upr eme Co ur t sa i d s o , 130 S

. Ct

. a t 21 98 –9 9, a s o ur 20 08 de ci si o n a l so ha d do ne . 5 28 F
. 3d at4 90 –91. Butthe c o n c l u s i o n d o e s n o tf o l l o w, b e c a u s e u n d e r th e S u p r e me Court’ s a nal ysi s the qu es tion i s no t whether a l i st, te st, o r cri ter i on i s l aw ful, but w hetherea ch uset o w h i c h it is p ut w as j us tified un d er th e criteria in §2000 e–2(k)(1)( A )( i)

. Rel yi ng o n U ni t ed A ir L ines , Inc . v. Evans , 43 1 U.S

. 55 3 ( 19 77 ) , a nd s i m i l ardecis i o ns , the Ci tya r g ue d t o theN o. 07

- 2052 7 Su p re m e C ou rtth at, i f d ela y in filin g a c h ar ge of d isc rim in at ion en tit les th e e m p loy er to tre at by go n es as law fu l, th enthe c ur rent effec ts o fthe se b y g o ne s m us t be l awful too
. Com pare L e db e t t e rv . Go odye ar T i r e& Ru b b e rCo

. , 55 0 U .S. 61 8 (2 00 7), Loranc ev. AT & T Tec hnol ogi e s , Inc . , 490 U
. S. 9 0 0 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , a nd D e l awar eSt at eCol l egev. Ri cks , 449 U
. S. 25 0 ( 1 9 8 0 ) , wi th Bazemorev. Fr i day, 478 U
. S. 385 (1986). T he J us tices rep li ed ( 130 S. C t. at 2199 ): W e d i s a g r e e . As r e l e v a nth e r e , tho s e c a s e s e s t abl i s h o n l y th a ta T i t l e V I Ip l a i n t i ffmust sh o w a
“ pr e s e ntv i o l a t i o n” wi thin the l i mi t a t i o ns p er i o d. E va ns, sup ra , at55 8 ( em ph as is dele ted)

. W hat that r e qu i r e s de pe nd s o n the c l a i m a s s e r t e d. Fo r d i s p a r a t e - t r e a t me n tc l a i ms

— and othe rs forwh i ch disc ri m i natory intent i s r equi re d

— th atmean s th e pla i nti f fm ust dem onst ra te del iber ate di scr i m i nati on withi n the l i m i tations peri od. S ee Led better, sup ra , at 6 2 4

– 62 9; Lo ran ce, supra , at 9 04 –9 05 ; R icks, sup ra , a t 2 56 –2 58 ; E va ns, sup ra , at55 7–56 0; se e al so C h a rdo n v . Ferna nd ez , 45 4 U.S

. 6, 8 ( 1981 ) ( per curi am )

. But f orcl ai m s tha t d o not r equi re di sc rim in at or y in te n t, n o s u c h d em on st ra tio n is n ee d ed . C f. Led better, su p ra , at 6 40 ; Lo ran ce, supra , at 90 4, 90 8–90 9. Our o pini ons, i t i s t rue, descr ibed th e harm s of w hich the u ns uc cess ful plain t iffs i n thos e ca ses co m pla i ned as “ prese nt eff ect[ s] ” o f p as t d isc rim in at ion
. Le d b e t ter, sup ra , at62 8; se e al so Lo ran ce, supra , at 9 07 ; C ha rdo n, sup ra , at8; R ick s , s u p ra , at 2 58 ; E va ns, sup ra , a t 55 8. Butthe re as o n t he y c o ul d no t b e the pr e s e nt e ff e c ts of prese nt di scr i m i nati on was that the charg ed dis

-8 N o. 07

- 2052 cri m i na ti o n r equi r ed pr o o fo fdi sc r i m i na to ry i ntent, wh i ch had notev en be en al l ege d. That r ea so ni ng has no a ppl i ca ti o n whe n, a s he r e, the charg e i s di spara te i m pact, wh i ch does not re quir e di scr i m i nator y i ntent. I n dis parat e- i m pact l i tiga tion the ques ti on i s no t whethe r a g i ve n t es t o r s ta nda r d is l awful s ta ndi ng alo n e, b u t w h et h er its ap p lica tio nh as be en ad eq u at ely j us ti fi ed. I n o th erw ord s, iti s th e app l i ca t i on ( “u se”) of a tes t o r sta nd ar d that Ti tl e VI Ip lac es a t i ssue. To s ay that the hi ghl y qu alified pool was l aw full y c om posed does not i m p ly t h a t it w as law ful f or the em p loyer to hire excl usi velyfrom th at p oo l. Gr iggs v . DukePo we rCo

. , 4 01 U
. S. 42 4 ( 1971 ) , the fi rs t d i s p a r a t e - i mp a c tc a s e , d i d n o ta s kw h e th e r th e e mpl o y er ’ s r equi r ement thata ppl i ca nt s po ss es s hi g hschoo l di plo m as

— a re q u ire m en t t h at d isp ro p or tio n at ely dis q ual i fi ed m i nor i ty appli cants

— w as “la w fu l.” P lain ly i t was; no rul e o fl aw pro scr ibes ra ce- neutral educati onal prer equi si tes
. N ordi d the Courtas k w hethera charg e ofdi scr i m in at ion had bee n fi l ed w i thi n 300 days after Du ke Pow er fi rs t rej ecte d a n appli cant w ho h ad not fi ni sh ed tw elfthg r ade

. The Co ur t as k ed whethe r the em plo yerhad j usti fi ed usi ng a r eq uir em ent that fi l ter ed ou t m in or ity a p p lica n ts . I t c on c lu d ed th at th e h igh -sc h oo ld i p l o ma r e q u i r e me n th a d b e e n u s e d t o p r o d u c e a n u n l a wfull y d iscrim inatory ou tcom e f o r a particu lar cate gory of jobs , no t t h at th e re q u ire m en t it se lf w as “u n law fu l” i n al l ci rcum sta n c es . W hethera pract i ce has bee n adequ ately j us tified is the q u e s t ion tha t §2000 e–2(k)(1)( A )( i) ,N o. 07

- 2052 9

w hi ch co difi es Gr iggs , po se d in t h is l i t i g a tio n . Th is is w hy i t does not m att er w hether the City i s enti tle d to tr eatthe w el l

- quali fi ed poolas l aw ful i n the abst ra ct. Th e j ud g men to fthe di s t r i c tc o urt i s a ffi r med , e xc e pt wi t h r e s pe c tt o the r e med y b a s e d o n the fi r s tb a t c h of hires. T he c a s e i s rem an d ed w ith instru ctions to m od ify the r em edy to el i m i na te any r el i efbas ed on the hi re s o f M ay 1996
.

5- 13- 11