2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
3-19-2007 

# El v . S EP T A
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 05-3857

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" El v . S EP T A" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1382. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1382P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 3857

DO UG LAS EL,

A ppel l ant

v. S OUT HE AS T E RN P E NNS YL VANI A T RA NS P OR T AT I ON

A U T H O R IT Y ("S E P T A "),

D e f e n d a n t/T h ird -P a rty Pl ai nt i ff

v. J & D J A G IC L A E N T E R P R IS E S , IN C ., t r a di ng a s LI BE RT Y V A N S; K IN G L IM O U S IN E S E R V IC E , IN C .; AN DER SON TRA VEL; K R A P F S C P S , IN C .; C O M M U N IT Y T R A N S IT , IN C .; A T L A N T IC P A R A T R A N S , IN C .; T R IA G E , IN C .;

E DE NS CO RP OR AT I ON; K IN G P A R A T R A N S IT S E R V IC E , IN C .,H onor abl e J ane A

. R es t ani , C h ief Ju d g e, U ni t ed St at es * C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 T h ird -P a rtyD e f

e n d a n ts

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 03591) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J
. C ur t i s J oyner
A r gued Sept ember 28, 2006 B efor e: M C K E E , and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges

R E ST A N I , C hi ef J udge

* ( O pi ni on fi l ed M ar ch 19, 2007) E u g en e A

. S p ec tor, E sq u ir e D avi d J

. C ohen, E s qui r e ( A r gued) S p e c t o r , Ro s e ma n & K o d r o f f , P
. C. 1818 M ar ketSt r eet , Sui t e 2500 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 T im o thyM
. K o lm an , E sq u ir e W ay n e A

. E ly , E sq u ir e T om ot hyM
. K ol m an and A s s oci at es 225 N

. Fl ow er s M i l l R oad L anghorne, PA 190473 C ouns el forA ppel l ant Saul H
. K r enze l , E s qui r e ( A r gued) R o b ert J. H au ri n , E sq u ir e Saul H
. K r enze l & A s s oci at es 42 Sout h 15t h St r eet , Sui t e 800 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 C ouns el forA ppel l ee T heodor e M
. Shaw D i r ect or - C ouns el and Pr es i dent N o rm an J. C h ac h k in, E sq u ir e R o b ert H
. S tr o u p , E sq u ir e M elan ca D
. C lark, E sq u ir e N A A C P L egal D efe ns e & E ducat i onal Fund, I nc. 99 H uds on St r eet , Sui t e 1600 N ew Y or k, N Y 10013 S h aro n M
. D iet ri ch , E sq u ir e C om m uni t yL egal Ser vi ces , I nc. 1424 C hes t nutSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 C o u n se l f

o r A m icu s-A p p e llan ts

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTW e do no tcom m ent on w hethert he p oli cyactuall yhas a 1 di s par at e i m pact , as the D istr i ctC our trul ed thatt he i s s ue w as n o t re s o lv a b le a t th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t sta g e . See inf ra , at8–9. 4 A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge T his a p peal ar i s es outof a Ti t l e V I I act i on al l egi ng e mpl o yme n td i s c r i mi n a t i o n b a s e d o n r a c e . Pl a i n t i f f Dou g l a s El cl ai m s t hatt he S o ut heas t ern Penns y l vani a Tra ns por t at i on A u th o rity (“ S E P T A ” ) un n e c e ss a rily d isq u a lifie s a p p lica n ts beca us e of pr i orcr i m i nal co n v ict i ons

— a pol i cyt hathe ar gues h as a d ispa rate im p ac t on m ino ri tyap p li ca n ts be ca u s e the yare m o re lik e lyth a n w h ite a p p lica n ts to h a v e c o n v ictio n s o n th e ir recor ds. 1
T he C our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent , how ever , i n favor of SE PT A , concl udi ng t hat it h ad bor ne the bur den of pr ovi ng t h a ti t s p o l i c yi s c o n s i s t e n t wi t h b u s i n e s s n e c e s s i t y . T h o u g h we h av e re serv ati o n s ab o u t suc h a po li cy in th e ab str ac t, w e a ff irm h ere b ec au se E l did n o t p rese n t an y ev iden ce to reb u t SE P T A ’s e x p e r tt e s t i m o n y. I . F act ual B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory I n J anuary 2000, K i ng Par atr ans i t Ser vi ces , I nc. ( “K i ng”) condi t i onal l yhi r ed El t o dr i ve par atr ans i tbus es . T he pos i t i on i nvol ves pr ovi di ng door

- t o - d o o ra n d c u rb- t o- curb tr ans por t at i on s er vi ce f orpeopl e w i t h m ent al and phy s i cal di s abi l i t i es . K i ngE l actual l y had di s cl os ed t he convi ct i on on hi s appl i cat i on, 2 butK i ng per s onnel apparen tl ydi d notnot i ce i tunt i l t hey e x a m in e d th e c rim in a l b a c k g ro u n d re p o rt. 5 s ubcontr act ed w i t h SE PT A t o pr ovi de par atr ans i ts er vi ces on SE PT A ’ s behal f. K i ng ’s s ubcontr actw i t h SE PT A di s al l ow ed hi r i ng any one w i t h, among ot hert hi ngs , a vi ol entcr i m i nal c o n v ictio n . A c c o rd in g ly , am o n g th e c o n d iti o n s s tip u late d in E l ’ s offe rw as s ucce s s ful compl et i on of a c r i m i nal backgr ound chec k. W i t hi n t he f

ir st f ew w eeks of El ’ s empl oym ent , K i ng di s cover ed thatE l had a 40- y ear - ol d convi cti o n fors econdd e g re e m u rd e r. F o llo w in g th e ter m s o f K in g ’s s u b c o n tra c t w ith 2 S E P T A a n d E l’s e m p lo ym e n t o f f e r, K in g te rm in a ted h is empl oym ent
. A ccor di ng to K i ng per s onnel , t he murde r convi ct i on w as t hei rs ol e r eas on. A s t he bac kgr ound chec k r evea l ed, E l w as convi ct ed of s econd- degr ee mur deri n 1960. A ccor di ng t o hi s t es t i m ony , t he m ur dert ook pl ace i n t he cont ext of a gang- r el at ed fi ghti n w hi ch t he vi ct i m w as sh otand di ed. E l w as 15 y ear s ol d att he t i m e, and t he vi c t i m w a s 1 6

. El c l a i ms n o tt o h a v e b e e n t he t r i gger m an, an d, i ndeed, he w as nott he onl yper s on convi ct ed of the murde r , butno obj ect i ve r epor tof the ci r cumst ance s a p p e a r s i n t h e r e c o r d b e f or e us. Fo l l o wi n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n , El serv ed three -an d -a-h alf y ea rs fo r h is crim e. T h is no w 4 7 -y ea rol d convi ct i on i s E l ’ s onl yvi ol entoffe ns e. A ccor di ng t o t he contr acti n pl ace betw een K i ng and6 S E P T A i n 200 0, K i ng w as requi red t o ensure t hat any o n e in SE PT A s er vi ce a s a dr i verorat t endanthave:

e. no r ecor d of dr i vi ng under[the] i nfl uence ( D U I ) of al cohol or drugs , and no r ecor d of anyfel ony orm i s demeanor convi ct i on forany cr i m e o f m or al turpi tude orof v iolen ce ag ains t anyp erso n (s); f. have no r ecor d of anyconvi ct i on w i t hi n t he l ast s even ( 7) y ear s for anyot herfel o nyoranyot her m id e m e a n o r i n an y ca tego ry r efe renced be l ow ( s ee s ect i on F .2 .1 0 .C ) [ li s ti n g s p e c if ic offe ns es], and notbe on pr obat i on orpar ol e foranys uch cr i m e, no m at t erhow l ong ago the convi ct i on fors uch cr i m e maybe. A p p . a t 4 2 9

. T h e p a rtie s d isp u te w h e th e r th is p ro v isio n a c c u ra tely s t at es t he hi r i ng pol i cy t hat w as appl i ed t o E l

. SE PT A cont ends t h a ti td o e s . El , o n t h e o t h e rh a n d , a r g u e s t h a tKi n g a n d SEP TA a p p lied a m u c h b ro a d e r e x c lu sio n tak e n f ro m lan g u a g e in another par t of t he cont r act t hats eems t o di s al l ow hi r i ng any oneI tm ay b e that o therSE PT A s ubcontr act or s appl i ed other 3 hir i ng po l i ci es ar ou nd t his t i m e. B ecause E l do es not— atl east att hi s t i m e i n t he l i t i gat i on— r epr es enta cl as s , the onl y hi r i ng pol i cypr oper l yati s s ue i s t he one appl i ed t o hi m , and al l of the evi dence i ndi cat es t hati tw as t he narr ow pol i cy t hatK i ng us ed in d e c id in g to ter m in a te h is e m p lo ym e n t. 7 w i t h a cr i m i nal convi ct i on of any ki nd. Speci fi cal l y , E l ar gues t hatK i ng appl i ed a nearby pr ovi s i on i n t he contr act s t at i ng that “[t ] he C ont r act or[K i ng] s hal l

. . . r ej ect/baranyappl i cantor cu rren t em p lo y ee fro m S E P T A -relat ed w o rk w h o se re co rd in c lu d e s . . . a n y c o n v ic tio n f o r a n y f e lo n y a n d /o r m is d e m e a n o r.” A pp. at430. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound thatK i ng appl i ed the narr ow er pol i cy . K i ng per s onnel t es t i fi ed thatt hey appl i ed t he narr ow er po l i cyt o E l an d t o all of it s SE P T A -r el at ed ap pli cants
. M or e o v e r , p e r s onnel fr om ot herSE PT A s ubcontr act or s t es t i fi ed t hatt heyappl i ed the narr ow erpol i cyi n s i m i l arcontr act s , and SE PT A per s onnel t es t i fi ed that t he narr ow er pol i cy w as t he one t hatSE PT A i nt ended f o r th em to appl yand the one thatt hey r efe r r ed t o w hen as ked foras s i s ta nce w i t h contr act i nt erpr et at i on. SE PT A ’ s t r ans act i onal l aw y er s m ay h av e bee n les s t h a n p re c ise in w riting a n in ter n a llyin c o n sis ten t co n tra c t, butal l of the r ecord evi dence s how s t hatone part i cul ar i nt erpr et at i on of thati ncons i s t encypr evai l ed, and s o w e ca nnot 3 concl ude t hatt he i s s ue i s genui nel ydi s put ed. T hus , w e dec i de t hi s cas e on the bas i s of the narr ow erhi r i ng pol i cyquot edT i t l e V I I br oadl y pr ohi bi t s empl oy er s fr om di s cr i m i nat i ng 4 a g a in s t app li ca n ts an d em p loy ee s o n the b asis o f ra ce , co lor, re lig io n , s e x , o r n a tio n a l o ri g in

. See ge ner al l y 4 2 U .S .C . § 2000e- 2. 8 a b o v e . A ft erhi s empl oym entw as t er m i nat ed, E l fi l ed a compl ai ntw i t h t he Equal Emp l o yme n tOpp o rtu n i tyCommi s s i on ( “EE O C ”) i n w hi ch he a l l eged thatSE PT A ’s hi r i ng pol i cy vi ol at ed Ti t l e V I I o f the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964 by 4 di s cr i m i nat i ng on t he basi s of ra ce. Speci fi cal l y , he ar gued that t he pol i cyhas a di s par at e i m pact : beca us e A fr i can A m er i cans an d H ispa n ics are m o re li k elyto h av e a crim inal rec o rd, th eyare m o re lik e lyto ru n a f

o u l o f th e p o licy . A f

ter in v e stig a tin g h is com plai nt, t he E E O C fou nd i n E l ’s f a vo r. T he ag encyw as, h o w e v e r, u n a b le to re so lv e th e d isp u te, a n d th e C iv il R ig h ts D i vi s i on of the D epart m entof J us t i ce de cl i ned t o p u rsue t he m a tte r. E l el ec ted to p u rsue this clai m h im self in D istri c t C o u rt as a cl as s act i on. T he D ist ri ctC our tdeci ded nott o det er m i ne i m m ediat el y w hether t o cer t i fy t he proposed cl ass. R ath e r, it al l ow ed ful l di s coveryl eadi ng up t o a per i od i n w hi ch part i es c o u l d f i l e d i s p o s i t i v e m o t i o n s . A f t e rc o m p l e t i n g d i s c o v e r y, SE PT A m oved f

o rs um m aryj udgm ent , ar gui ng t hat( 1) i tw as notE l ’ s empl oy erfor T it le V I I purpos es , ( 2) E l had not s ubm i t t ed s uffi ci entevi dence t hatSE PT A ’s p ol i cyhad aT he D i s t r i ct C our t had j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U

. S. C

. § 1331; 5 w e have j ur i s di ct i on under28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. 9 di s par at e i m pacton r aci al m inor i t i es , ( 3) i thad s ubm i t t ed s uffi ci entevi dence to pr ove thati t s pol i cyw as j us t i fi ed by bus i nes s nec essity , and ( 4) E l had nots ubm i t t ed s uffi ci ent evidence of an al t ernat i ve p oli cyt hat w ou l d acco m pli sh S E P T A ’s l eg it im a te g o al of p u b li c sa fe ty
. T h e D istri ct C o u rt deni ed t he m ot i on on t he fi r s tt w o gr ounds , butgr ant ed i ton t he sec o n d tw o , thu s ef

fe cti v ely en d ing the l it igation in S E P T A ’s favo r. T his app eal foll ow s. 5

I I . St andard of R evi ew T h e sta n d a rd f

o r a w a rd in g su m m a ryju d g m e n t is w e llw or n: i ti s fi t t i ng w hen “ther e i s no g en u ine i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac tand .

. . t he m ovi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a m a tter o f

law .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). T h e m o v in g p a rty “bea r s t he i ni t i al r es pons i bi l i t y of i nfor m i ng t he di s t r i ct cour tof t he bas i s fori t s m ot i on , an d ide nt i fy i ng t hos e por t i ons of the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and a d m iss io n s o n f

ile, to g e th e r w ith th e a f f id a v its, if a n y , w h ich it bel i eves demonst r at e the abs ence of a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t
. ” C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 477 U

. S. 317, 323 ( 1986) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ).
B e c a u se S E P T A so u g h t su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n its aff i r m at i ve def

ens e of bus i nes s nece s s i t y , i tw oul d b ea rt heM anyof the ca s es w e ci t e use t he t er m s “bur den of pr oof” 6 a n d “ b u r d e n o f

p e r s u a s i o n ” i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y . Ye tt h e t wo conce pt s ar e noti dent i cal

. T he bur den of pr oof compri s es t he b u rd e n s o f

p ro d u c tio n a n d p e rs u a s io n . McC ann v. N ew m an Ir revoca ble Trust , 458 F. 3d 281, 287 ( 3d C i r . 2 0 0 6 ). T he form er is the obl i gat i on t o come for w ar d w i t h evi dence of a l i t i g a n t’s n ecessarypropo si t i on s of fact. Itoften m at t ers m ost b e f o re trial b e c a u se p lain tiff s w h o h a v e n o t co m e f

o rw a rd w ith har d evi dence t o s uppor tt hei rnec es s aryal l egat i ons cannot s ur vi ve a s um m aryj udgm ent m o t i on byt he def ens e. T he b u rd e n o f

p e rsu a sio n , o n th e o th e r h a n d , is t h e o b lig a tio n to co n v ince the f

ac tfi n d er a t tr ial that a li ti g an t’ s n ec essa ry p ro p o s itio n s o f

f a c t a re in d e e d tru e . 21B C har l es A l an W r i ght & K e n n e th W . G ra h a m , J r., Fed. P r ac. & Proc

. § 5122 ( 3d ed. 2 0 0 5 ); B l ack’s Law D i ct i onar y 1 9 0 (7th ed

. 1 9 9 9 ).
10 bur den of pr oof att ri al a n d t her efor e musts how t hati thas 6 pr oduced e n o u g h evi dence t o s uppor tt he fi ndi ngs of fa ct n ec essa ry to w in

. M

ar z ano v. C om

put erSci

. C or

p. , I nc. , 91 F .3 d 4 9 7 , 5 0 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); Sor ba v. P enn. D r i l l i ng C o. , I nc. , 8 2 1 F
. 2 d 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 -03 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 7 ). W h e n a w itn ess’s c re d ib ili ty is critica l to su p p o rtin g th e n e c e ss a ryf in d in g s o f

f a c t, t he D i s t r i ctC our tm us tcons i derw hethert her e ar e suf fici ent gr ounds fori m peac hm entt hatw oul d pl ace t he fac t s t o w hi ch he te s tif ie s in le g itim a te d is p u te
. S e e H o ro w itz v . Fe d

. Ke m

p e r L ife As s u r . C o. , 5 7 F
. 3 d 3 0 0 , 3 0 2 n . 1 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 5 ) (“S u m m ary ju d g m e n t is in a p p ro p ria te w h e n a c a se w ill tu rn o n c re d ib ili ty det er m i nat i ons . ”) (cit i ng A nders on v. Li ber t y Lobby, I

nc. , 47711 U
. S

. 2 4 2 , 2 5 5 (19 8 6 )). In co n side ri n g the e v iden ce , the c o u rt s h o u l d d r a w a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s a g a i n s tt h e m o v i n g p a r t y. A nders on , 4 7 7 U .S . a t 2 5 5 (“ T h e e v id e n c e o f th e n o n -m o v a n t is to b e b e liev e d , an d a ll j u stif iab le in f e re n c e s a re to b e d ra w n in hi s favor

. ”) ( ci t i ng A di cke s v. S. H

. Kr es s & Co. , 398 U

. S. 144, 1 5 8

– 5 9 (1 9 7 0 )); se e a lso A tkin so n v . L a Fa y e tte C o ll. , 460 F. 3d 4 4 7 , 4 5 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). If th e m o v in g p a rtysu c c e ss f u llyp o in ts to e v id e n c e o f a ll o f th e f a c ts n e e d e d to d e c id e th e c a se o n th e law sh o rt o f tria l, th e n o n -m o v in g p a rty c a n d e f e a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t if it nonethel es s pr oduces o r p o int s t o evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hat c r e a te s a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te ri a l f

a c t. J o s e y v . J o h n R. H ol l i ngs w or th C or

p. , 9 9 6 F
. 2d 632, 637 ( 3d C i r . 1993)

. T he no n-m ov i ng part ycann ot r eston m ere pl eadings or al l egati on s; r atheri t m us t poi nt t o actual evi dence i n t he r ecor d on w hi ch a ju ry c o u ld d e c id e a n is s u e o f f a c t its w a y . B er cke l ey I

nv. G r oup, L td . v. C o lkitt , 45 5 F. 3d 19 5, 20 1 ( 3d C i r. 20 06 ) (“In th is r es pect , s um m aryj udgm enti s es s ent i al l y‘ putup ors hutup’ t i m e fort he non-movi ng par t y : t he non- m ovi ng par t ym us tr ebut t he mo ti o n w i t h fac t s i n t he r ecor d and ca nnotr es ts ol el yon as s er t i ons m ade i n t he pl eadi ngs , l egal m emora nda, o r ora l arg u m en t. ”).
P u t an o ther w ay , it is inap p rop ri ate t o g ran t s u m m ary j u d g me n t i n f

a v o r o f a mov i n g p a r t y who b e a r s t h e b u r d e n ofO u r u se o f th e ter m “ re a so n a b le ju ro r” h e re is p u rp o se f u l, 7 forthe Supr eme C our thas hel d t hat“s om e met aphy s i cal doubt as to the m ateria l f

a c ts ” w il l no t def

ea t a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary ju d g m e n t. Matsushi t a E l ec. I ndus

. C o. , 4 7 5 U .S . a t 5 8 6 . A re a so n a b le ju ro r w ill b e c o m p e lled to f in d f o r th e m o v in g p a rty unl es s t her e ar e r eas onabl e— not fanc i ful ori l l us or y
— conce r ns w i t h t he movi ng par t y ’ s evi dence

. 12 p ro o f a t trial u n les s a re a so n a b le ju ro r w o u ld b e c o m p e lled to 7 f i n d i t s wa yo n t h e f

a c t s n e e d e d t o ru l e i n i t s f a v o r o n t h e l a w. See M at s us hi ta E l ec. I

ndus

. C o. , Lt d. v. Zeni th R adi o C or p. , 475 U .S . 5 7 4 , 5 8 7 (1 9 8 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e “[ w ] her e the r ecor d t aken a s a w hol e coul d notl ead a ra ti o n a l tr ie r o f f

ac t t o fin d fo r th e n o n -m o v ing p arty
. . . . ”); Hi l l v. C i t

y of Scr ant on , 411 F. 3d 118, 127 n. 11 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “O f cour se, beca us e the def endantbear s t he bur dens of pr oof an d p ersu asio n o n the th ir d p ron g [,] .

. . to p re v a il at sum m ary j udgm enton t hi s pr ong t he defe ndant m us t pr es entevi dence of s uch q u ali t yt hatno r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d concl ude thatt he p rotec ted a cti v ity w as th e b u t- fo r ca u se o f th e term ination

. ”); s ee al s o Turne rv. Hers hey Chocol at e U

. S. , 440 F.3d 604, 612 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ) (“W ere w e to u p h o ld the D istri ct C o u rt ’s c o n c lu sio n a n d g ra n t o f s u m m a ryju d g m e n t w e w o u ld n e e d to con cl ud e t hat r easona ble j urors could notbutf i nd t hatr ot at i ng a m o n g a ll th re e tab les is a n e ss e n tial f u n c tio n o f

th e sh a k e r ta b le i ns pect or pos i t i on at H er s hey

. ”) ( emphasi s added)

. A ft eral l , t he bur den of pr oof i ncl udes t he obl i gat i on t o per s uade the fac t fi ndert hatone’ s pr opos i t i ons of fa ct a re i ndeed true.13 B l ack’s Law D i ct i onar

y 19 0 ( 7th ed. 19 99 ). T hu s, i f t here i s a chanc e thata r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d not acc epta movi ng par t y ’ s nece s s arypr opos i t i ons of fact , pr e- t r i al j udgm entcannot b e g ra n ted

. S p e c io u s o b jec tio n s w ill n o t, of

c o u rse , d e f

e a t a m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm ent , but r eal ques t ion s about cr edi bi l i t y , gaps i n t he evi dence , and doubt s as t o t he s uffi ci ency o f th e m o v a n t’s p ro o f

, w ill

. I I I . D i s cus s i on A. T h e B u si n ess N ecessi ty D efense 1. Con tou rs of

th e D efense T h e S u p rem e C o u rtfirstrec o g n ized that T it le V II pl ai nt i ffs can make outa vi abl e empl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on c laim w ith o u t alle g in g o r p ro v in g d isc rim in a to ryin te n t in Gr ig gs v . Duke Po wer , 4 0 1 U .S . 4 2 4 (1 9 7 1 ). T h e C o u rt h e ld t hat pl ai nt i ffs can s ucce ed by s how i ng t hatthe chal l enged empl oym entpol i cyhas a di s cr i m i nat or yeffec t thati s not justi fied b ythe n ee d s o f th e d ef en d an t’ s b u s in e s s. T h e C o u rt announce d t hat t hes e “di s par at e i m pact ” cas es s houl d pr ocee d i n t w o s t eps : (1) the pl ai nt i ff mustpr ove thatt he cha l l enged pol i cydi s cr i m i nat es agai ns tm ember s of a pr ot ect ed cl as s , and t hen (2) t he d efen dan tcan o vercom e t he sho w i ng of d i sp a ra te i m pactby pr ovi ng a “m ani fes t r el at i ons hi p” bet w een the pol i cy and j ob per for m ance . T hi s s econd st ep cam e t o be know n as t heT he name der i ves fr om t he G ri ggs opi ni on: 8 T he [Ci vi l R i ght s ] A ctpr os cr i bes

notonl yover tdi s cri m i nat i on but a l s o p r a c t i c e s t h a ta r e f a i ri n fo r m, butdi s cri m i nat or yi n oper at i on. The t ou chst on e i s b u sin e ss n e c e ss ity
. I f an em pl oym ent p rac t i ce w hi ch oper at es t o excl ude N egr oes cannotbe s ho w n t o be r el at ed t o j ob per for m ance , t he pr act i ce i s pr ohi bi t ed. 4 0 1 U
. S

. at 43 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ). A s w e d e ta il in P a rt II I.B , i nfr a , t he s ucce s s ful as s er t i on of 9 the b u sine ss n ec essityd ef en se is n o t an iron clad sh iel d ; r athe r, t he pl ai nt i ff c an over come i tby sh o w i ng t hatan al t ernat i ve pol i cyexi s t s t hatw oul d s er ve the em pl oy er ’ s l egi t i m at e goal s as w ell as th e c h all en g ed p o li cyw ith le s s o f a d iscri m inato ry e f f e c t. 14 “b u s in e ss n ec essity ” d ef en se, an d itserv es a s an em p loy er’s 8 onl ym eans of def

eat i ng a Ti t l e V I I cl ai m w hen i t s empl oym ent p o licyh a s a d isc rim in a to rye f f e c t. 9
T he S up rem e C ou rtfurt her dev el op ed the bu si ness nece s s i t ydefe ns e overa s er i es of ca s es . I n G r iggs , it d e a lt w ith apt i tude t es t s admi ni s t er ed byan empl oy er in m aki ng hi r i ng d e c isio n s. T h e C o u rt h e ld th a t d isc rim in a to rye m p lo ym e n t tes ts m us t“bea ra demonstr abl e r el at i ons hi p t o s ucce s s ful15 p e r f o r ma n c e o f t h e j o b s f

o r whi c h i t was u s ed. ” G r iggs , 401 U
. S

. at43 1. Itfurt her hel d that“any g iv e n requ i rem ent m ust have a m ani fes t r el at i ons hi p t o t he empl oym enti n ques t i on. ” I d. at432. I n A l bem ar l e P aper C o. v. Moody , 4 2 2 U
. S

. 4 0 5 (19 7 5 ), i tel abor at ed on the us e of di s cr i m i nat or yt es t s byadopt ing the E E O C ’s d e ter m in a tio n th a t te st re su lts m u st p re d ict o r c o rre late w i t h “i m por t ant el ement s of w or k behavi orw hi ch compr i s e or ar e r el evantto t he j ob orj obs forw hi ch ca ndi dat es ar e bei ng eval uat ed. ” Id

. at 43 1 (qu o tin g 2 9 C

. F
. R
. § 1 6 0 7
. 4 (c)). In D othar d v. R aw l i ns on , 433 U

. S. 321 ( 1977) , t he C our tr ej ect ed hei ghtand w ei ght cr i t er i a for hi r i ng pr i s on guar ds , hol di ng t hat d isc rim in a to ry re q u ire m e n ts m u st “ b e sh o w n to b e n e c e ss a ryto s afe and ef

fi ci entj ob per for m ance . ” Id

. at331 n. 14. T he empl oy eri n t hatcas e a rgued t hats t r ength w as an es s ent i al qual i t yand thatt he hei ght and w ei ght cr i t er i a s er ved as a pr oxy fors t r ength. T he C our tr ej ect ed thi s ar gum ent , hol di ng t hat w hi l e s t r ength m ayhave be en an e s s ent i al qual i t y , t he empl oy er had nots peci fi ed the amount of s t r ength nece s s aryor demonst r at ed anycorr el at i on betw een thes e hei ghtand w ei ght c ri te ri a a n d th e n e c e s s a ry a m o u n t th e re o f

. Id

. at 33 1

– 3 2

. In C onnect i cut v. Teal , 457 U

. S. 440 ( 1982) , i thel d t hatan empl oy erm aynotj us ti fy us i ng a di s cr i m i nat or yt es tfor det er m i ni ng pr om ot i on el i gi bi l i t ybyal s o us i ng an af fi r m at i ve act i on s y s t em aft ert he fa ctt o achi eve a n appr opr i at e r aci al b a lan c e . A s the C o u rt n o ted , T itl e V II o p e ra tes n o t p rim a rilyto t h e b e n e f

i to f r a c i a l o rm i n o r i t y gr oups , butt o ens ur e that in d ivid u a l a

p p lica n ts r ece i ve the cons i der at i on t heyar e due a nd a re n o t s c re e n e d o u t b ya rb itr a ry p o l i c ie s o r d e v ic e s . Id

. at16 453–54. F o r o u r pu rpo ses, t w o asp ec ts of thes e c ase s are not ew or t hy

. Fi r s t , t he C our t r efus ed t o acc eptbar e or“comm ons ens e”- bas ed as s er t i ons of bus i nes s nece s s i tyand i ns t ead r equi r ed s om e l evel of empi r i cal p r oof thatchal l enged hi r i ng c ri te ri a a c c u ra te ly p re d ic te d jo b p e rf o r m a n c e . D othard

is par t i cul ar l ynot ew or t hybeca us e the C our tr ej ect ed an empl oy er ’ s comm on- s ens e ar gum ent t hat pr i s on guar ds m us tbe r el at i vel y s t r ong t o j us t i fy cr i t er i a t hat r oughl y m ea s ur ed s t r ength. T he l es s on i s t hat empl oy er s cannotr el yon r ough- cut m easures of em ploym ent- rel at ed q uali t i es; rath e r t heym ust t ai l ort hei rcr i t er i a t o m eas ure tho s e qual i t i es acc ur at el yand d ir e c tly f o r e a c h a p p lic a n t. Second, t he C our tdi d notal l ow em p loy ers t o r el yon “m o re is be tt er” -st y le rea s o n ing to justi fytheir po li cies. In G r iggs , A lb e m a rle , and D othard , t he empl oy er s ar gued thatt he c h a llen g e d c riter ia w e re ju sti f ie d b yth e f

a c t th a t o n e w o u ld natur al l ypr efe rs m ar t eror s t r ongerempl oy ees t o l es s i nt el l i gent o r w e a k e r o n e s, a n d so it w a s o f n o m o m e n t th a t th e c riter ia m i ghtbe s eta bi t hi gher t han s t r i ct l y nece s s ary . T he C our thel d, h o w e v e r, th a t so m e a b stra c t n o tio n th a t m o re o f a g iv e n q u a lity i s bet t eri s i ns uffi ci entt o j us t i fya di s cr i m i nat or ypol ic yunder T i t l e V I I ; r ather, t he empl oy erm us tpr es entr eal evi dence t hat t he cha l l enged c r i t er i a “‘ m easur e[s ] t he per s on fort he j ob and nott he p er s on i n t he abs t r act
. ’ ” D othard , 433 U

. S. at332 ( quot i ng G r iggs , 4 0 1 U .S . a t 4 3 6 ).17 T he Supr eme C our thas never deal t di r ect l yw i t h cr i m i nal r ecor d pol i ci es , t hough i t has done s o t angent i al l yw i t h cr i m i nal behavi or i n t w o cas es . I n McD onnel lD ougl as C or p. v. G r een , 411 U

. S. 792 ( 1973) , t he C our t s us t ai ned an em pl oy er ’ s r efus al t o r ehi r e a f

or m erempl oy ee on the gr ound t hat t he empl oy ee ha d par t i ci pat ed i n var i ous di s rupt i ve, i l l egal pr ot es t s i n fr ontof the em p loy er’s p rem ise s . I d

. a t 7 9 4

– 9 5 , 8 0 4 . S p e c if ica lly , ith e ld t hatt he empl oy er ’ s fea r t hat thi s empl oy ee w oul d cont i nue t o be dis rupt i ve in vi olat i on of th e l aw w as a l egit i m at e bu si ness re a s o n f o r t h e re f

u s a l. Id

. at804. I n N e w Y o r k C ity T

ra n sit A uthor i t y v. B eaz er , 4 4 0 U .S . 5 6 8 (1 9 7 9 ), th e C o u rt h e ld th a t it w as per m i s s i bl e underT i t l e V I I t o r efus e t o hi r e any one us i ng m e th a d o n e to tre a t th e ir a d d ict io n to ill e g a l d ru g s f o r “ sa f e ty s ens i t i ve” posi t i ons on a ci t yt r ans i ts y s t em becaus e s uch a pol i cys er ves t he “l egi t i m at e e m p loy m entgoal s of s afe t yand eff i ci ency . ” Id . a t 5 8 7 n .3 1

. A lth o u g h th e se tw o S u p re m e C o u rt c a se s d e a l w ith ill e g a l ac tiv ity o n th e p a rt o f th e a p p lica n t, ne ith e r o n e sq u a re ly addr es s es t he i s s ue of pr i orconvi ct i ons . I n McD onn el lD ougl as , t he empl oy erhad others peci fi c r eas ons for f ea r i ng di s rupt i on fr om t he appl i cant t han t he m er e exi s t ence of a c r i m i nal r ecor d. I n B eaz er , the C o u rt a d d re ss e d th e su itab ili tyo f h irin g p e o p le act i vel yus i ng m ethadone t o r ecove rfr om addi ct i on t o i l l egal drugs , nott he s ui t abi l i t y of peopl e w i t h r ecor ds of pas tcr i m i nal behavi or . M or eover , t he bus i nes s nece s s i t ydefe ns e w as nott he focus of ei thercas e, and s o t he C our tdi d notar t i cul at e t he c o n t o u r s o f

th e d e f e n s e w i t h a n y s p e c i f

i c i t y.18 In 198 9 the S up rem e C ou rtexp and ed the bu si ness neces s i t ydefe ns e i n W a rd s C o v e P a c k in gC o ., In c . v. A to n io , 490 U

. S. 642 ( 1989)

. T her e it hel d t hata cha l l enged di s cr i m i nat or yempl oym entp r a c t i c e need notbe nec es s aryi n t he s ens e o f “es s ent i al ” or“i ndi s pens abl e” t o pas s m us t erunder T i t l e V I I ; r ath er , t he pr act i ce mustm er el y“s er ve[] , i n a s i gni fi cantw ay , t he l egi t i m at e empl oym entgoal s of the empl oy ee. ” War d

s C ove , 4 9 0 U
. S

. at 65 9

. E v en m o re s i gni fi cantw as t hati ts hift ed the bur den of pr oof fr om t he e m p lo y e r t o th e e m p lo y e e . I d.
R e c o g n i z i n g t h i s h o l d i n g a s a d e p a r tu r e f r o m G riggs , C ongr es s r es ponded w i t h t he C ivil R i ght s A ctof 1991 ( t he “A ct ”) , w hi ch pl ace d back on t he em pl oy er t he burde n of pr oof. 42 U

. S. C

. § 2000e- 2( k)

. T he A ctal s o abr ogat ed the W ar ds C ove defi ni t i on of bus i nes s nece s s i t y . C i vi l R i ght s A ct of 1991, § 3( 2) , Pub. L
. N o. 102- 166, 105 St at
. 1071 ( 1991) ( s t at i ng t hat a pu rpose of the A ct i s t o codify t he conce pt of bu si ness n e c e s s i t y a s i t e x i s t e d p r i o rt o W a rds C ove )

. C ongr es s not ed bot h i n t he purpos e s ect i o n of the A ctand i n an author i t at i ve i n t e rp r e t i v e m e m o r a n d u m t h a t“ [ t ] h e t e r m s ‘ b u s i n e s s n e c e s s i t y’ and ‘ j ob r el at ed’ [as us ed i n t he A ct ] ar e i nt ended t o r efl ectt he conce pt s enunci at ed byt he S u pr eme C our ti n G r iggs v. D uke Po we rCo

. , 4 0 1 U. S

. 4 2 4 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , a n d i n t h e o t h e rS u p r e me C our tdeci s i ons pr i ort o W a rd s C o v e P a c k in g C o ., In c . v. A to n io , 490 U

. S. 642 ( 1989)

. ” 137 C ong. R ec. S15, 273–01 ( dai l yed. O c t. 25 , 1 9 9 1 ) (s tat e m e n t o f S e n . D a n f

o rth ); s ee al

s o C iv il R i ght s A ctof 1991, §§ 3( 2 ) & 105( b) ( adopt i ng t he G r iggs19 defi ni t i o n o f bus i nes s nece s s i t yand s t at i ng t hatonl yt he i nt erpr et at i ve mem or andum quot ed m aybe us ed i n cons t rui ng th e A c t). T h u s, th e tex t an d leg isla tiv e h isto rylea d d ire c tlyto t he conc l us i on t hatC ong ress i nt ended t o codi fyt he G r iggs d e f in iti o n o f

b u sin e ss n e c e ss ity , as c lar if ied a n d d e v e lo p e d in t he Supr eme C our t ’ s pr e- W ar ds C ove j ur i s prudence

. U n fo rtu n ately , as nu m ero u s co u rt s an d c o m m en tat o rs h a v e n o te d , G r iggs and i t s progen ydid not pr ov i de a p reci se d e f in itio n o f

b u s i n e s s n e c e s s ity. See, e. g. , Lanni ng v. Southeas t er n P a. Transp. Aut h. , 1 8 1 F
. 3 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ) (Lanni ng I

) (n o tin g th a t th e A c t w a s so u n c lea r th a t b o th p rop o n en ts a n d o p p o n en ts o f a stri ct bu sine ss n ec essitystan d ard c la im e d v ic to ry); S u s a n S . G ro v e r, T h e B u sin e ss N

e c e ss ity Def e n s e i n Di s

p a r a t e I mpa c tDi s c r i mi n a t i o n Case s , 3 0 Ga. L. R e v . 3 8 7 , 3 9 1

– 9 3 (1 9 9 6 ); A n d re w C . S p ir o p o u lo s , D ef i ni ng the B us i nes s N

ece s s i t y D ef ens e t o the D is

par at e I m pact C aus e of A ct i on: F i ndi ng the G olden Mean , 74 N

. C

. L
. R ev. 1479, 1520 ( 1996)

. N or m al l y , w e w oul d l ook t o addi t i onal l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yt o det er m i ne i f i tcl ar i fi es w hatC ongr es s m eantby b u sin e s s n e c e ss ity . H o w e v e r, C o n g re ss stip u late d th a t co u rts m aynotcons i deranydocument ot hert h an the i nt erpr et i ve m e m o r a n d u m q u o t e d a b o v e a s t h e A c t ’ s l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y. C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1991, § 10 5 ( b) ( s t at i ng t hatnot hi ng ot her t han a s peci fi ed i nt erpr et i ve m emora ndum s houl d be cons i der ed le g isl ati v e h ist o ryan d there b yu sed to co n stru e the A ct). In L a n n ingI and II, w e hee ded C ongr es s ’ s i ns t ruct i on and l ooked n o f u rt h e r t h a n th e m e m o ra n d u m . Lanni ng v. Southeas t er n P a.E v e n if w e d id r e v ie w a d d iti o n a l leg isla tiv e h isto ry , it 10 w o u ld n o t cla rif

yth e iss u e . In f

lo o r d e b a te, th e n -M in o rity L eade rSenat orR ober tD ol e s t at ed t hatt he A ct ’ s defi ni t i on of bus i nes s nece s s i t yi s l es s s t r i ctt han thos e art i cul at ed i n t he i ni t i al ver s i ons of the Senat e bi l l t hat eventual l ybeca m e the A ct a n d th e p a ra llel H o u se b ill

. 1 3 7 C o n g . R e c . S 1 5 , 4 7 2

– 0 1 (d a ily ed. O ct
. 30, 1991) ( stat em en tof Sen. D ol e)

. I n t he i ni t i al ver s i on o f the S enat e bi l l , bus i nes s nece s s i t yw as defi ned as “bea r [i n g ] a ma n i f

es tr el at i ons hi p” t o “the per for m ance of ac tual w or k ac t i v i t i e s r e q u i r e d b y t h e e mpl o y e r f o r a j o b o r c l a s s of j obs ” or“anybehavi ort hat i s i m por t antt o t he j ob, butm aynot compri s e ac tual w or k act i vi t i es . ” S. 1745, 102d C ong. § 7 ( Sep. 26 , 19 91 ). In t he ini t i al versi on of the H ou se bi l l , bu si ness n e c e ss ity w a s d e f

in e d a s “ b e a r[ in g ] a sig n if ica n t re latio n sh ip to s ucces sfu l pe r for m ance of the j ob. ” H

. R
. 1, 102d C ong. § 3 (Ja n . 6 , 1 9 9 1 ). A c o n f u s in g a sp e c t o f

th e H o u se b ill is th a t, w h il e i tpurpor t s t o overrul e W ar ds C ove , the lan g u a g e is s tr ik in g ly sim ila r t o th a t u s e d in th e c a s e . C om par e i d. w ith W ar ds C ove , 490 U

. S. at659. 20 Tra n sp . A uth. , 3 0 8 F
. 3 d 2 8 6 , 2 8 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (L a n n ingII ); Lanni ng I, 181 F. 3d at488. W h ile s o m e m a yb e sk e p tic a l o f C o n g re ss ’s p o w e r to in stru c t co u rts w h a t leg isla tiv e h isto ryth e ym a ytak e in to acc ountw hen int erpr et i ng a s t atut e, w e nee d notcons i der an y th in g b e y o n d th e in ter p re tiv e m e m o ra n d u m b ecause d oing so w o u ld b e u n h e lp f

u l in th is c a se . M e m b e rs o f C o n g re ss sim p ly 10 c o u ld n o t ag re e o n a p re c ise d e f in iti o n o f b u sin e ss n e c e ss ity ; all21 t hey co u ld a gr ee upon w as overrul i ng W ar ds C ove and re in sta tin g th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s s o m e w h a t co n f lictin g p o stG r iggs and pr e- W

ar ds C ove ju risp ru d e n c e . T h u s, o u r t a sk is to be as fai t hful t o t hati nt entas pos s i bl e. A t t empt i ng t o i m pl ement t he G ri ggs s t andar d, w e have hel d t hat hi r i ng cr i t er i a m us t eff ect i vel y m eas ur e t he “mi ni m um q u a lific a tio n s f

o r su c c e ss f

u l p e rf o rm a n c e o f

th e jo b in ques t i on. ” See Lanni ng I, 1 8 1 F .3 d a t 4 8 1

. T h is h o ld in g re f lec ts t he G r iggs /

A lb e m a rle /

D othard rejecti o n o f c ri teri a th a t are overbr oad orm er el ygen eral , uns ophi s t i cat ed meas ur es of a l egi t i m at e j ob- r el at ed qual i t y . I t i s al s o cons i s t entw i t h t he fa ct t hatC ongr es s cont i nues t o cal l t he t es t“bus i nes s nece s s i t y , ” not

“ b u s in e s s c o n v e n ie n c e ” o r s o m e o th e r w e a k e r t e rm . H o w e v e r, h irin g p o licie s n e e d n o t b e p e rf e c tlytailo re d to be cons i s t ent w i t h bus i nes s nece s s i t y . A s w e hel d i n L a n n ingII, empl oy er s need nots ett he bars o l ow t hatt heycons i deran appl i cantw i t h so m e, butunr eas onabl yl ow , pr obabi l i t yof s u c c e s s f u l p e rf o rm a n c e . L a n n ingII, 3 0 8 F .3 d a t 2 9 2 (“ It w o u ld cl earl ybe u nreasonab l e t o requir e S E P T A app l i cants t o score so hi ghl yon t he run t es tt hatt hei rpr edi ct ed r at e of [ j ob] s ucce s s be 100%

. I ti s per fec t l yr eas onabl e, how ever , t o demand a chanc e of s ucce s s t hati s bet t ert han 5% to 2 0 %

. ”)

. A ft eral l , t he Supr eme C our t has hel d t hatT i t l e V I I neverfor ces an empl oy er to a c c e p t an u n q u a lif

ied

— o r e v e n les s q u a lifie d

— a p p lica n t in t h e n a m e o f

n o n -d is c ri m in a tio n . G r iggs , 4 0 1 U. S. a t 436 ( “C ongr es s has notcomm ande d that t he l es s qual i fi ed be22 p re f e rre d o v e r th e b e tte r q u a lifie d sim p lyb e c a u se o f m in o rity o rig in s.” ). M o re o v e r, th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s n o ted th a t b rig h tl i ne cr i t er i a, s uch as apt i tude tests, ar e l egi t i m at e and us eful h ir ing too ls so lon g as th e y a cc u ratelym ea su re a p erso n ’s q u a lif ic a tio n s . Id

. Put t i ng t hes e s t andar ds t ogether , t hen, w e req ui r e that empl o y e r s s h o w t h a t a d i s c r i mi n a t o r y hi r i ng pol i cy a c c u ra tely

— b u t n o t p e rf e c tly

— a sc e rta in s a n a p p lica n t’s a b ili ty to p e rf o rm su c c e ss f

u llyth e jo b in q u e stio n . In a d d iti o n , T itl e V II a llo w s th e e m p lo y e r to h ire th e a p p lica n t m o st lik e lyto per for m t he j ob s ucce s s ful l yoverot her s l es s l i kel yt o do s o. 2. A ppl ying the D ef

ens e to Cr im ina l

Convi cti on P oli cies P rio r d e c isio n s o n b u sin e s s n e c e ss ityd o n o t d ire c tly contr ol her e. T he s t andar ds s etouti n G ri ggs and i t s pr ogeny ( i ncl udi ng t he s t andar ds not ed byourC our ti n Lanni ng I and II ) do notpar al l el the fa cts of thi s cas e. I n t he ca s es ci t ed above , t he h i ri ng po l i ci es at is sue w ere t est s desi gn ed o r used— atl east al l egedl y
— t o m eas ur e an e m pl oy ee’ s abi l i t yt o per for m t he re lev a n t jo b s. H e re , h o w e v e r, th e h irin g p o lic yh a s n o th in g to d o w ith the a p p li ca n t’ s ab il ity to d ri v e a p ara tr an sitb u s; r athe r, i tseeks t o ex cl ud e app l i cants w ho , w hile a b le to dri ve a b us, pos e t oo m uch of a r i s k of pot ent i al harm t o t he pas s enger s t o be tru st ed w i t h t he j ob. T hus , ours t andar d of “mi ni m um qual i fi cat i ons nece s s aryfo r succes s ful per for m ance of the j ob23 in qu esti o n ” i s ap p rop ri ate i n test -sco re case s, b u t aw k w ard h ere becau se “successful perform ance o f t he job” i n the u sual sense i s n o t a t is s u e . See Lanni ng I, 18 1 F. 3d at 48 2. S E P T A c o u ld ar gue thats ucce s s ful per for m ance of the j ob i ncl udes not a ttac k in g a p a ss e n g e r a n d , the re f o re , tha t th e sta n d a rd is still a p p r o p r i a t e . H o w e v e r , t h e s t a n d a r d i s w o r d e d t o a d d r e s s a b i l i t y, notr i s k. Y et , t he i s s ue bef ore us i s t he r i s k t hatt he empl oy ee w i l l har m a pass enger , and t he phr as e “mi ni m um qual i fi cat i on” s i m pl ydoes notfi t , as i t is h ard t o ar t i cul at e the mi ni m um qual i fi cat i on forpos i ng a l ow r i s k of att acki ng s om eone. T h e o n lyre p o rte d a p p e llate lev e l ca se to a d d ress s q u a re ly t he i s s ue of e xcl us i ons fr om el i gi b i l i t yon t he bas i s of pr i or con vict i on s i s Gr e e n v . Mis s o u r i Pa c . R. R. Co

. , 523 F. 2d 1290 ( 8t h C i r . 1975)

. T her e the empl oy err efus ed t o hi r e any one for anypos i t i on w ho had bee n convi ct ed of a nyoffe ns e ot hert han a m in o r t ra f

f ic v io la tio n . Id

. at1292. G r een ha d appl i ed foran o f f i c e j o b , a n d h e was n o tc o n s i d e r e d b e c a u s e o f a p r evi ous c o n v ictio n f

o r re f u sin g to a n s w e r th e d ra f t (a f ter f a ili n g to q u a lif ya s a c o n s c ie n tio u s o b

je c to r)

. Id

. at 12 9 2

– 9 3

. T h e C o u rt hel d t hat t he em pl oy er ’ s pol i cy w as t oo br oad t o be j us t i fi ed by b u s in e s s n e c e s s ity. Id

. a t 1 2 9 8

– 9 9

. G r een , how ever , pr es ent ed mat er i al l yd i ffe r entfac t s t han t hos e befor e us i n t w o r es pect s . Fi r s t , t he j ob i n G r een w as an o ff ice job a ta corpor at e hea dquar t er s ; i tdi d notr equi r e the e m p lo y e e to b e a lo n e w ith a n d in c lo se p ro x im ityto v u ln e ra b le m em b ers o f so ciety

. T h e p u b lic saf etyco n ce rn is o f m o re24 m om enti n ourcas e. Second, t he hi r i ng pol i cyi n G r een pr event ed hi r i ng a per s on w i t h anycr i m i nal convi ct i on, “no m at t erhow r emot e, i ns ubs t ant i al , o r u n r el at ed t o [the] appl i cant ’ s per s onal qual i fi cat i ons as an empl oy ee. ” Id

. at1296 ( quot i ng McD onnel lD ougl as , 4 1 1 U
. S

. at 80 6 ). H ere , S E P T A ’s pol i cyonl ypr event s cons i der at i on of peopl e w i t h cert ai n t ypes of conv i ct i on s— t ho se t hat i t argues hav e t he hi gh est an d m ost un predi ct able r at es o f re c i divi sm and t hu s pres ent the g reat est d a n g e r t o its p a s s e n g e rs . In th is c o n te x t, G r een w as an ea s i er cas e i ns ofaras t he Supr eme C our thas hel d fi r m l yt hatan e m p lo y e r w ith a n e x tre m e lyb ro a d e x c lu sio n a ryp o licyth a t f a ils to o f f e r a n y e m p irica l ju stif

ica tio n f o r it is u n a b le to m a k e o u t a s u c c e s s f u l b u s in e s s n e c e s s ityd ef e n s e , D othard , 433 U

. S. at334, w her eas SE PT A has a narrow er pol i cyfora pos i t i on i n w hi ch cr i m i nal convi ct i ons ar e more j ob- r el at ed.
T he EE O C has s poken t o t he i s s ue i n i t s C om pl i ance M anual , w hi ch st at es t hatan appl i cantm aybe di s qual i fi ed fr om a j ob on t he bas i s of a pr evi ous convi ct i on onl yi f the empl oy er tak e s in to a c c o u n t: 1. T he natur e and gravi t y of t he off ense or offen ses; 2. T he ti m e that h as p asse d s i nce the convi ct i on and/ orcompl et i on of the s ent ence ; and 3

. T h e n a tu re o f

th e jo b h e ld o r so u g h t.T w o d is t r i ctcour t s have publ i s hed dec i s i ons on pr i or 11 convi ct i on pol i ci es . I n EE O C v. C ar ol i na Fr ei ghtC ar r i ers C o. , 25 E qual E m pl

. O pp. C om m . C om pl i ance M anual § 605 A pp. T he E E O C cl ar i fi es t hat “n atur e and gr avi t yof the off ens e” means f o r e m p lo y e rs to c o n s id e r th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th a t o f f e n s e . I d. T he EE O C ’ s G ui del i nes , how ever , do nots peak t o w hetheran empl o y ercan t ake thes e fa ct or s i nt o acc ountw hen cr aft i ng a br i ght

- l i ne pol i cy , nord o they s peak t o w hetheran empl oy er ju stif iab lyc a n d e c id e th a t c e rta in o f f e n se s a re se rio u s e n o u g h to w a rra n t a life tim e b a n . S E P T A ’s p o licya rg u a b lytak e s in to acc ountt he s ens i t i ve natur e of the j ob and s or t s appl i cant s by t ype of of

fens e. For s om e offens es , i tcons i der s t he t i m e s i nce th e c o n v ic tio n ; f

o r o th e rs , it d o e s n o t. I n addi t i on, i t does notappea rt hatt he EE O C ’ s G ui del i nes a re e n tit led to g re a t d e f

e re n c e . W h ile so m e e a rlyc a se s s o h e ld in in terpreting T it le V II, G r iggs , 4 0 4 U. S. a t4 3 4 , mor e r e cent cas es have he l d t hatt he EE O C is e n ti t l ed onl yt o Skidm ore d e f e re n c e . EE O Cv. A r abi an A m er i can O i lC o. , 499 U

. S. 244, 257 ( 1991) ( ci t i ng Ski dm or e v. Sw i f t & Co. , 323 U

. S. 134, 140 ( 1944) ) ( s uper s eded bys t atut e on unr el at ed gr ounds ). U nder t hats t andar d, t he EE O C get s defe r ence i n acc or dance w i t h t he th o ro u g h n e ss o f

its re se a rc h a n d th e p e rsu a siv e n e ss o f its re a s o n in g . Id

. H er e, t he E E O C ’ s pol i cyw as r ew r i t t en t o br i ng i ti n l i ne w i th the G r een c a se , b u t th e p o licyd o c u m e n t it se lf d o e s n o t s u b s ta n tiv e ly an a lyze th e s t a t u te
. See E q u a l E m p l. O pp. C om m . C om pl i ance M anual § 605 A pp. 117 2 3 F
. S u p p . 7 3 4 (S

. D
. F la. 1 9 8 9 ), the e m p loy er ref u sed to h ir e any appl i cant for a t ruck dr i ver pos i t i on w ho had bee n convi ct ed o f a n yf e lo n yo r m is d e m e a n o r r e la te d to th e f t. Id

. at 737–38. T he em p lo y e r s t at ed thati t s dri vers w ere i n p osi t i on s of t rust b e c a u se th e o p p o rtu n ityto ste a l ca rg o w a s so g re a t an d it co u ld not r i s k hi r i ng any one w i t h a t heft

- r el at ed or ot herserious c ri m i n a l c o n v ic tio n . Id

. at738. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof F l o r i d a h e l d t hatt he empl oy erdemonst r at ed t he r equi s i t e bu s i nes s nece s s i ty , s peci fi cal l ycr i t i ci zi ng t he hol di ng i n G r een and asser t i ng t hat m aking out a b u sin e ss nece s s i t ydefe ns e does notr equi r e s t r i ctpr oof thata convi ct i on pol i cyi s eff

ect i ve . Id

. a t 7 5 2

– 5 3

. I n d e e d , t h e e mp l o y e rs e e ms not t o have s ubm i t t ed any r eci di vi s m s t at i s t i cs o r an y o t her i n d i c i a o f

t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i t s p o l i c yb u tf o ri t s o wn s ta te m e n ts th a t it c o n s id e re d th e p o lic ye f f e c tiv e . Id

. a t 7 5 4

. B e s id e s th is s h o rt c o m in g , C a ro lin a Fre ig h t w as deci ded under t he W ar ds C ove d e f

in itio n o f b u s in e s s n e c e s s ity. B efor e G r een , a D i s t ri ctC our ti n L oui s i ana de al tw i t h a case i n w hich a n A fri can A m eri can b el l m an w as fi red becau se of a c ri m i nal r ecord i nv olvi ng ser i ou s p rop erty -r el at ed cri m es. R i char ds on v. H

ot el C or p. of A m er i ca , 3 3 2 F
. S u p p . 5 1 9 ( E
. D. L a . 1 9 7 1 ), a

f f ’ d p e rc u r i a m at46 8 F
. 2 d 9 15 ( 5t h C i r . 1972) ( aff i r m i ng t he D i s t r i ctC our tw i t hout opi ni on)

. Speci fi cal l y , t he hot el r efus ed t o hi r e any one as a bel l m an w ho h ad been c o n v ic te d o f

a s e ri o u s c ri m e (l e f

t u n d e f in e d in th e o p in io n ). I

d. at521. T he D i s t r i ct C our t found t hat t he pol i cy w as w arr ant ed bybus i nes s n ec essi t ybeca us e of the s ens i t i ve natur e of a bell m an’s j ob , part i cular l ya b e llm an’s easyaccess t o g uest s’ ro o m s . Id

. A s t he R ic har ds on cas e w as deci ded s hor t l yaft er 26G r iggs , t he D i s t r i ctC our t ap p l i ed the G ri ggs “m anifest re l a tio n s h ip ” s ta n d a rd

. Id

. ( quot i ng G r iggs , 4 0 1 U
. S

. at 43 2 ). A s i n C ar ol i na Fr ei

ght , t he D i s t r i ctC our tr equi red no s ophi s t i cat ed s how i ng t hatt he pol i cyw as narr ow l y - t a i l or ed, and t he o pini on do es not ci t e reci divi sm st at i st i cs. A s S E P T A d isc o v e re d in th e tra g ic c a s e o f p a ra tra n sit 12 dr i verD avi d deSouza, even a ppl i cant s w i t h cl ean c r i m i nal rec o rds s o m eti m es e n d an g er pa ssen g ers. A t the t im e o f h is hire byK i ng , deS ou za had no pri or crim in al con vict i on s. N evert h el es s , he att acke d and r aped a pas s engerw hi l e s er vi ng as a S E P T A d ri v er. 27 Co n s i d e r i n g t h e d e a r t h o f a u t h o r i t yd i r e c t l yo n p o i n t , we b e l i e ve t h a to u rs t a n d a r d s f r o m L a n n ingI and II

— namel yt hat d isc rim in a to r yh irin g p o licie s a c c u ra telyb u t n o t p e rf e c tly d istin g u ish b e tw e e n a p p lica n ts’ a b ili tyto p e rf o rm su c c e ss f

u lly t he j ob i n ques t i on— can be adapt ed t o fi tt he cont extof cr i m i nal convi ct i on pol i ci es . I n a br oad s ens e, hi r i ng pol i ci es , s uch as t he o n e a t i ssu e h ere , u lt im atelyco n ce rn th e m an ag em en t of ri sk

. In L a n n in gI & II, w e dealtw i th h ow em ploy ers m anag e t he ri sk t hatappl i cant s w i l l be unabl e to per for m t he j ob i n ques t i on. S ee L a n n ingII, 3 0 8 F .3 d a t 2 8 7

– 8 8 ; Lanni ng I, 181 F. 3d at482. H ere w e dea l w i t h t he r i s k t hatan appl i cantw i l l endange rt he em p loy er’s p atro n s . In b o th ca ses, i t i s im p o ssible to m ea su re t he r i s k per fec t l y , and i n bot h cas es T i t l e V I I does notas k t he 12 i m pos s i bl e. I tdoes , how ever , as i n t he ca s e of pe r form ancere late d p o licie s, re q u ire th a t th e p o licyu n d e r re v iew a c c u ra telyIt m a y se e m o d d to sp e a k o f a n a c c e p tab le le v e l o f

risk in 13 t hi s cont ext , gi ven t he hor r or s t hatdr i ver s can i nfl i cton di s abl ed pas s enger s , but , as t he deSouza ca s e demonstr at es , s om e l evel o f ri s k is in e v ita b le , s ee s upr a not e 12. SE PT A m aym i ni m i ze th a t risk to th e e x ten t re a so n a b ly p o ss ib le, bu t w h a tev e r c riter ia i tuses m ustdis t i ng uis h w i t h suff i ci ent accuracybetw een those w ho pos e thatm i ni m al l evel of r i s k and t hos e w ho pos e a hi gher lev e l. 

### I n thi s c a s e , we have no oc c a s i on t o hol d that bri ght

- l i ne 14 

### po li ci es in the c ri minalconv ic ti oncontext are per s e inva l i d. Indeed, we have up held po li ci es in other Tit leVII c on te xts t hat e ff e c t i ve l y bar an a

pp l i c ant fr om e m pl oy m e nt ontheba s i s of

a sin g le, b rig h t-lin e test resu lt, b ut w h atev er criteria it u ses m u st d istin g u ishw ithsu f

f icient accuracy

b etw een th o s e w h o p o se 28 di s t i ngui s h betw een a ppl i cant s t hat pos e an unacc ept abl e l evel o f risk a n d th o se th a t d o n o t. 13
E l u rg e s u s to g o f

u rth e r a n d h o ld th a t T itl e V II p ro h ib its anybr i ght

- l i ne pol i cyw i t h rega r d t o cr i m i nal convi ct i ons ; he arg u es, rather, th at T it le V II r e q u ir e s tha t eac h ap p li ca n t’ s c irc u m sta n c e s b e c o n sid e re d in d iv id u a llyw ith o u t re f e r e n c e to any br i ght

- l i ne rul es . W e decl i ne t o go s o far

. I f a b r i ght

- l i ne pol i cycan di s t i ngui s h betw een i ndi vi dual appl i cant s t hat do and d o n o t p o se a n u n a c c e p tab le lev e l o f risk , th e n su c h a p o licyis con si st ent w i th b usi ness necessi t y . W hethera po l i cycan d o so i s m os toft en a que s t ion o f factt hatt he di s t r i ctcour t s

— and j uri es— m ustres olve i n specifi c cases. 14

### th atmin im al lev el o f riskan dth o se w h o d o n o t. La nn ingII , 308 F. 3d at

291–92 ( a ffi rmi ng SEPTA’ s us e of abri ght

- l i ne ae robic c apac it

y te st to bar a pp li cants from

em ploy m ent a s tran sit p o lice o f

f icers). 29 3. Co u ld a R ea so n a b le Ju ro r Fin d tha t SEP T

A ’s P oli cy I s N ot Consi s tent w ith B usines s N

ece s s it y? In a rg uing t hat i t s poli cyi s consi st ent w i t h b usi ness nece s s i t y , SE PT A cl ai m s t hati t has pr es ent ed evi dence s uch that a re a so n a b le ju ro r m u st fin d th a t: (1 ) th e jo b o f a p a ra tra n sit d riv e r re q u ire s th a t th e d riv e r b e in v e ryc lo se c o n tac t w ith pas s enger s , ( 2) t he j ob r equi r es thatt he dr i veroft en be a l one w ith p a ss e n g e rs, (3 ) p a r a tra n sit p a ss e n g e rs a re v u ln e ra b le becau se theyt ypical l yhav e ph y si cal and / or m ental dis abil i t i es, ( 4 ) d i s a bl ed peopl e ar e di s pr opor t i onat el yt ar get ed bys exual and vi ol entcr i m i nal s , ( 5) vi ol ent cr i m i nal s r eci di vat e at a hi gh r at e, ( 6) i ti s i m pos s i bl e t o pr edi ctw i t h a r eas onabl e degr ee of ac cu r acyw hi ch cr i m i nal s w i l l r eci di vat e, ( 7) s om eone w i t h a co n v i c t i o n f

o ra v i o l e n tc r i me i s mor e l i k e l yt h a n s o m eone w i t houtone t o comm i ta futur e vi ol entcr i m e i r r es pect i ve of how r emot e i n t i m e t he convi ct i on i s , and ( 8) SE PT A ’ s pol i cyi s t he m os tacc ur at e w ayt o s cr een outappl i ca n ts w ho pr es entan u n a c c e p ta b le ri s k

. A s an i nit i al m at t er, w e agree w i t h S E P T A t hat these facts , if p ro v e d , w o u ld b e su f f icie n t to s h o w th a t it s p o licyis cons i s t entw i t h bus i nes s nece s s i t y , atl east a s i tappl i es t o aI ti s w or t h not i ng t hat SE PT A al s o perpetual l y bans fr om 15 par atr ans i templ o y m entpeopl e w i t h convi ct i ons forcr i m es of m or al turpi tude. B eca us e the evi dence s ubm i t t ed has fo c us ed on vi ol entconvi ct i ons l i ke El ’ s , w e have no occa s i on t o det er m i ne w hetherSE PT A ’ s pol i cym aybe j us t i fi ed as t o t hos e convi ct ed of non- vi ol entcr i m es of m or al turpi tude. SE PT A t oo heavi l y emphasi zes t he s i xt h al l eged fac t : t hat 16 it i s im p o ss ib le to p re d ict w h ich c rim in a l w ill re c id iv a te. T h is f a c t, i f p ro v e d , is o f

lit tle u se b e c a u se it i s a lso im p o ss ib le to pr edi ctw hi ch non -crim inal w il l co m m it a crim e. W h at m att ers i s t he r i s k t hatt he i ndi vi dual pr es ents, ta ki ng i nt o acc ount w h a tev e r a sp e c ts o f

th e p e rso n ’s c rim in a l h isto rya re re lev a n t. T hus , i f s cr eeni ng out appl i cant s w i t h veryol d vi ol entcr i m i nal convi ct i ons acc ur at el ydi s t i ngui s hes betw een t hos e w ho pr es ent an unac cept abl e r i s k, t hen r el i ance on t hi s fac t or i s appr opr i at e; if th e c riter io n is i n a c c u ra te o r o v e rb ro a d in th e c a se o f v e ryo ld con vict i on s, t hen i ti s i nap propri at e for T i t l e V II pu rposes. 30 per s on w i t h a vi ol entcr i m i nal convi ct i on l i ke El

. I f s om eone 15 w i t h a vi ol entconvi ct i on pr es ent s a m at er i al l yhi gherr i s k t han s om eone w i t houtone, no m atterw hi ch otherfac t or s an empl oy ercons i der s , t hen SE PT A i s j us t i fi ed i n notcons i der i ng peopl e w i t h t hos e convi ct i ons . For exampl e, SE PT A m aybe 16 a b le to sh o w th a t a p o licye x c lu d in g a ll v io len t o f f e n d e rs is j us t i fi ed bybus i nes s nece s s i t ybeca us e otherfac t ors— s uch as age a tconvi ct i on, t he num ber of vi ol entconvi ct i ons , and/ ort he re m o ten e ss o f th a t c o n v ictio n

— a re u n re liab le o r o th e rw ise f a il to re d u c e th e risk to a n a c c e p tab le le v e l.E l w i t hdr ew al l obj ect i ons t o t he expe r t s ’ qual i fi cat i ons for 17 purpo s es of SE PT A ’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , s o w e, l i ke th e D istric t C o u rt, a ss u m e th a t th e e x p e rts a re d u lyq u a lifie d to offe radmi s s i bl e evi dence

. SE PT A ’ s r epor t fr om D r . D avi d G r i ffi n, a s t at i s t i ci an w ho 18 p rin c ip a llytes tif

ied o n w h e th e r its p o licyh a s a d isp a ra te im p a c t, relie s e n tirelyo n th e se sta tistics

. M o re o v e r, D r. G rif f in cl ai m ed no part i cul arexpert i s e i n cr i m i nol ogyoranyr el evant di s ci pl i ne othert han s t at i s t i cs . A s w e a lr ea dyaddr es s t he l i m i t at i on s of these s t at i st i cs i n di scussi ng t he o t her t w o ex pert s, w e do no tadd res s further D r. G ri ffi n’s s t at em ents
. 31 I n s u p por to f

i t s s u mma r yj u d g me n tmot i o n , SEP TA su b m itt e d th e re p o rts o f th re e e x p e rts. A ll th re e re lyh e a v ily 17 on data fr om t he D epart m ent of Just i ce t hat tracked reci divi sm o f p r i s o n e r s wi t h i n t h r e e y e a r s o f t h e i rr e l e a s e f

r o m pr i s on. In d e e d , tho se d a ta s h o w re la ti v e lyh ig h ra tes o f re c id iv ism in t hos e fi r s t t hr ee y ear s . B utw hatabouts om eone w ho has been r e l e a s e d f

r o m p r i s o n a n d v i o l e n c e - f r e e f o r4 0 y e a r s ? T h e DOJ s t at i s t i cs do notdemonst r at e thats om eone i n t hi s pos i t i on— or anyt hi ng l i ke i t

— i s l i kel yt o r eci di vat e. 18
O n e o f S E P T A ’ s e x p e rt s w a s D r. A lf re d B lu m s te in , a not ed author i t yon r eci di vi s m . H e s t at ed:

Itis al so the c ase that an ind ividu al’s pr opens i t yt o comm i ta futur e vi ol ent crim e d ec rea ses a s tha t i n d ividu al’s32 cr i m e- fr ee dur at i on i ncr eas es . T hati s , an i ndi vi dual w i t h a pri orvi ol entconvi ct i on w ho has b een c r i m e- fr ee i n t he c o m m u n ityf

o r tw e n ty y e a rs is les s lik e ly t o comm i ta futu re c r i m e than one w ho has been c r i m e- fr ee i n t he comm uni t yfor o n ly t en y ears . B ut nei t her of these i ndi vi dual s ca n be j udged t o be l es s or equal l y l i kel y t o comm i t a futur e viol ent act t han com par abl e i ndi vi dual s w ho have no pr i orvi ol ent hi s t ory . I ti s pos s i bl e that t hos e di ffe r ence s m i ghtbe s m al l , but m a k in g su c h p re d ictio n s o f c o m p a ra b le lo w -p ro b a b ili tye v e n ts is e x tre m e ly di ffi cul t , a n d th e c r i m i nol ogi cal di s ci pl i ne pr ovi des no good bas i s for maki ng s uch pr edi ct i ons w i t h anyas s ur ance t hatt hey w ill b e c o rre c t. A p p . at 9 5 3 ( c it a tio n to D O J s tatistic s o m itt e d ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ).
T hi s s t at ement br i dges , as bes t i t can, t he gap be t w een the th re e -y ear s t at i st i cs and E l ’s 40 y ear- old conv i ct i on . B ecause D r . B l um s t ei n i s a dul yqual i fi ed pr ofes s i onal cr i m i nol ogi s tand beca us e nothi ng i n t he re cor d r ebut s hi s s t at ement , w e mustt ake hi m athi s w or d t hat fo rm ervi ol entcr i m i nal s w ho have be en cr i m e fr ee f

orm any y ear s ar e at l eas t s om ew hat m or e l i kel yt han33 m ember s of the gene r al popul at i on t o comm i t a fut ur e vi ol ent ac t
. He n o t e s t h a tt h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t wee n t h e p r o b a b i l i t yt hat s om eone w i t h a r emot e convi cti on and s om eone w i t h no c o n v ic tio n w ill c o m m it a f u tu re v io le n t c ri m e “ m ig h t b e s m a ll,” butgi ven the mar ked s ens i t i vi t yof the pa ratra ns i tpos i t i on at i ssue, a sm al l bu t extant differ ence i s suffici ent. Itis a lso not ew or t hyt hatD r . B l um s t ei n r epor t s t hatt he cr i m ino logi cal di s ci p li ne i s i ncapa bl e of di s t i ngui s hi ng acc ur at el ybetw een v iolen t cri m inals w h o are an d are n o t l ikelyto co m m itfu ture vi ol entcr i m es . I n ot herw or ds , he bel i eves t hatSE PT A ’ s pol i cy di s t i ngu ishes as acc ur at el yas t he cr i m i nol ogi cal di s ci pl i ne al l ow s . A gai n, bec aus e w e s ee nothi ng i n t he r ecor d r ebut t i ng th is s ta te m e n t, w e m u s t ta k e D r. B lu m s te in a t h is w o rd

. SE PT A al s o s ubm i t t ed the r epor tof D r . D i ck S o b sey , an educa t i on ps y chol ogi s t
. D r . Sobse yr epor t ed thatdi s abl ed peopl e ar e p rop o rt i onat el ym or e l i kel yt han other s t o be the vi c t i ms o f v i o l e n t o r s e x u a l c r i me s . He f u r t h e r r e p o r t ed t hat e m p lo y e e s o f

tra n sp o rta tio n p ro v id e r s c o m m it a d is p r o p o rtio n a te sh are o f th o se c ri m e s a g a inst disab led p eo p le. L ike D r. B l um s t ei n, D r. Sobse ycl ai m s t hatt he s t r ength of vi ol ent c rim in a l ac tiv itya s a p re d icto r o f f u tu re c rim in a l a c ti v ity

“ mo d e r a t e s o v e r t i me b u t r e ma i n s r e g a r d l e s s o f h o w mu c h t i me pas s es . ” A pp. at 920. D r . Sobse y ’ s r epor t , t her efor e, pr ovi des ev iden ce fo r S E P T A ’s arg u m en t that p ara tr an sit p o sit ion s are e x tra o rd in a rilyse n sitiv e , a n d th a t sc re e n in g o u t in d iv id u a ls w ith vi ol entconvi ct i ons

— no m at t erhow r emot e— i s appr opr i at e.34 T hus , on t hi s r ecor d, w e have l i t t l e choi ce butt o concl ude that a reaso n ab le juro r w o u ld nec essa ri ly fin d th a t S E P T A ’s pol i cyi s cons i s t entw i t h bus i nes s nece s s i t y . T hi s i s n o t t o s ay t hatw e ar e convi nced that SE PT A ’ s expert r epor t s ar e i r oncl ad i n t he abst rac t
. B utE l chos e nei t hert o hi r e an e xper tt o r ebut S E P T A ’s e x p e rts o n th e iss u e o f b u sin e ss n e c e ss ityn o r e v e n to d e p o s e S EP TA’ s e x p e r t s . Th e s e c h o i c e s a r e f a t a l t o h i s c l a i m, fora par t yoppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent“ca nnotr es ts ol el yon as s er t i ons m ade i n t he pl eadi ng s, le gal m emora nda, oror al ar gum ent
. ” B er cke l ey I nv. G r oup, Lt d. , 455 F. 3d at 201. H er e, th e re is n o th in g in th e re c o rd th a t ra ise s a n yre a so n a b le c re d ib ili tyq u e stio n a b o u t S E P T A ’s e x p e rt e v id e n c e , reb u ttab le as i t m ay be. T hus , w e m us tconcl ude thatt he r eas onabl e j ur or w ou l d b el i eve those exp ert s. H a d E l p ro d u c e d e v id e n c e re b u tti n g S E P T A ’s e x p e rts, th is w o u ld b e a d iffe ren t ca se. H ad h e, f o r e x am p le, h ir ed an ex p ert w ho t es t i fi ed thatt her e i s t i m e atw hi ch a f or m ercr i m i nal i s no l ongeranym or e l i kel yt o r eci d ivat e than the ave r age pe r s on, t hen t her e w oul d be a f actual ques t i on fort he j ur yt o r es ol ve. Si m i l ar l y , had E l depos ed SE PT A ’ s expert s and ther eby p rod u ce d legiti m ate rea s o n s to d o u b t th eir cred ibil ity , there w oul d be a f

actual ques t i on fort he j ur yt o r es o l ve. H er e, h o w e v e r, h e d id n e ith e r, an d h e su f f e rs p re -tria l ju d g m e n t f

o r it.
D es pi t e notdepos i ng SE PT A ’ s expert s or hi r i ng expert s of hi s ow n, E l di d pr oduce evi dence i n t he form of t es t i m onyfr om SE PT A per s onnel t hr ough w h ich he att empt s t o “r ebutt he35 m oti on w i t h fac t s i n the r ecord, ” as B er cke l ey re q u ir e s . I d. A ll he br oughtout , how ever , w as evi dence t hatr ai ses ques t i ons ab o u t SE P T A ’s ca re in f o rm u lat ing it s h ir in g p o li cy . In r es pons e t o E l ’ s i nt err ogat or i es , SE PT A named 11 em pl oy ees a n d f o rm e r e m p lo y e e s th a t co u ld sp e a k to th e b u sin e ss n e c e ss ity o f S EP TA’ s p o l i c y . Of

t h o s e 1 1 , El d e p o s e d e i g h to f t h e m. ( T he othert hr ee, E l cl ai m s , had moved aw ayand co u ld notbe found. SE PT A does notdi s put e thi s char act er i zat i on, nordoes it as se rt th a t th e se th re e w o u ld h a v e p r o v id e d m a ter ially d if f e re n t tes tim o n y .) R e a d in g th ro u g h th o se d e p o s itio n s, it is s t r i ki ng t hatnotone of the w i t nes s es t hatSE PT A named w as abl e t o expl ai n— bey ond a gene r al conce r n forpas s enger s afe t y
— w h y t hi s par t i cul arpol i cyw as chos en fr om among m yri a d p o s s ib iliti e s . See D othard , 4 3 3 U
. S

. at331. E ven V in c e n t W a ls h , the d ra f ter o f th e p o licy , co u ld p ro v id e lit tle i ns i ghti nt o how t he pol i cyw as w r i t t en, on w hatrese ar ch or in f o rm a tio n it w a s b a s e d , o r w h yit w a s s tru c tu re d a s it w a s . T hi s i nabi l i t yi s par t i cul ar l ys t r i ki ng gi ven t hat t he pol i cy S E P T A cl ai m s i tapp lied m akes dis t i ncti on s am on g cri m es, s e t t i n g a p a r ts o me c r i me s f o ra l i fet i m e b a n f

r o m SEP TA empl oym entand appl y i ng a sev en- y earban t o ot her s . I f the pol i cyw er e dev eloped w i t h anyt hi ng appr oachi ng t he l evel of c a re th a t G r iggs , A lb e m a rle , and D othar d s eem t o cont empl at e, th e n w e w o u ld e x p e c t th a t so m e o n e a t S E P T A w o u ld b e a b le to e x p l a i n h o w i td e c i d e d w h i c h c r i m e s t o p l a c e i n t o e a c h c a t e g o r y, h o w t h e s e v e n - y e a rn u mbe rwas s e l e c t e d , a n d whySEP TA th o u g h t a lif

e tim e b a n w a s a p p ro p r iate f o r a c rim e lik e sim p le36 as s aul t. A l m os tal l of El ’ s r el evantques t i ons aboutt he pol i cy w er e met w i t h s i l ence fr om SE PT A per s onnel , s ugges t i ng t he r eas onabl e i nfer ence t hat SE PT A has no r eal bas i s foras s er t i ng t hati t s pol i cyacc ur at el ydi s t i ngui s hes bet w een a ppl i cant s t hat d o a n d d o n o t p re s e n t a n u n a c c e p ta b le le v e l o f ri s k

. T i t l e V I I , how ever , does notm eas ur e ca r e i n for m ul at i ng h irin g p o licie s; ra th e r, itre q u ir e s th a t an e m p lo y e r b e a b le to s how t hati t s pol i cyi s cons i s t entw i t h bus i nes s nece s s i t yw hen chal l enged. G r ant ed, t he t w o w i l l t ypi cal l y g o h and-i n- hand. H e re , h o w e v e r, f

o r a ll o f S E P T A ’s a p p a re n t lo o se m a n n e r in fo rm u lat ing an d d efe n d ing it s p o li cy , itp rod u ce d cre d ible ex p ert t es t i m onyt hati t s pol i cyacc ur at el y s cr eene d outappl i cant s t oo l i kely t o com m i t act s of vi olence againstparat ransi tpasseng ers . E l’s e v id e n c e (th a t S E P T A to o k lit tle c a re in f o rm u latin g its hi r i ng p o li cy ) , t hr ough t r oubl i ng, does notdi r ect l yans w er S E P T A ’s ( th a t th e p o li c y, h o w e v e r litt le c a re w e n t in to for m ul at i ng i t , i s acc ur at e beca us e t hos e w ho have c om m i t t ed a vi ol entcr i m e, no m at t erhow l ong ago, ar e m or e l i kel yt han the m ember s of t h e g ener al popul at i on t o comm i ta futur e vi ol ent a c t). T h e re f

o re , E l d o e s n o t d e f

e a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t. E l al s o s ubm i t s t he EE O C ’ s concl us i on t hatSE PT A w as u n ab le t o estab li sh the s u it ab il ityo f it s p o li cy , an d that E l’ s y out h att he t i m e of hi s convi ct i on and t he l ength of t i m e s i nce th a t co n v ictio n , in d ica te th a t h e w o u ld n o t p o se a th re a t toE E O C d e ter m in a tio n s a re re lev a n t su b sta n tiv e e v id e n c e in 19 T itl e V II c a se s. L ik e a ll rele v a n t ev id e n c e , the ya re e x c lu d a b le u n d er F ed era l R u le of E v iden ce 4 0 3 if su b stan ti all ym o re p re ju d ic ia l th a n p ro b a tiv e . C ol em an v. H om e D epot

, I nc. , 306 F. 3d 1333, 1344–45 ( 3d C i r . 2002)

. T he D i s t r i ctJ udge di d not rul e on the admi s s i bi l i t yof the det er m i nat i on i n t hi s cas e. 37 SE PT A ’ s pas s enger s . A dm i s s i bi l i t y ques t i ons as i de, the 19 E E O C det er m i nat i on i s t er s e and si m pl yas s er t s t he r el evanc e of E l ’ s y out h and the r emot enes s of his convi ct i on w i t hout expl anat i on, anal y s i s , orauthor i t y . I tpr o v i des not hi ng of s ubs t ance on w hi ch the j ur y coul d r el y , and s o i t s r ebut t al of SE PT A ’ s exper ts c an cr eat e no more t han a “ s ci nt i l l a” of s u p p o rt f o r E l’ s p o s itio n . A nders on , 4 7 7 U .S . at 25 2 . T h u s, it is in su f f icie n t to c re a te a n iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t. T aki ng al l of t he re cor d evi dence i nt o acc ount , t her e i s no s ubs t ant i ve evi dence on w hi ch a r eas onabl e j ur orcoul d fi nd t hat S E P T A ’ s p o l i c y i s i n c o n s i s t e n tw i t h b u s i n e s s n e c e s s i t y. Sum m aryj udgm enti n SE PT A ’s fa vorw as , t her efor e, appr opr i at e. B. The A l t e r nat i ve Pol i c y I s s ue A l s o on appea l i s t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof sum m ary j udgm enti n favo rof SE PT A on t he al t ernat i ve pol i cyi s s ue. U n d e r th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t, a T itl e V II p lain ti f f c a n p re v a il d e sp ite a n e m p lo y e r’s su c c e ss f u l as se rtio n o f b u sin e ss n e c e ss ity38 i f t he pl ai nt i ff poi nt s out an “al t ernat i ve empl oym entpr act i ce” t hat( 1) s er ves t he em pl oy er ’ s l egi t i m at e goal s as eff ect i vel yas th e c h a llen g e d p ra c tice , an d (2 ) re su lts in les s o f a d isp a ra te i mpa c t
. 4 2 U. S. C. § 2 0 0 0 e - 2 ( k ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i ) ( c o d i f y i n g t h e pr eW ar ds C ove s t andar d for s how i ng t he pr opr i etyof an a l t ernat i ve e m p lo ym e n t p ra c tice ) ; A lb e m a rle , 422 U

. S. at425 ( r equi r i ng t hatt h e al t ernat i ve pr act i ce be as eff ect i ve as t he cha l l enged p rac ti ce an d n o t hav e “ a sim ilarl yu n d esirab le racial ef fe ct. ”); s ee al s o W at s on v. For tW

or th B ank , 487 U

. S

. 9 7 7 , 997–78 ( 1988) ( O ’ C onnor , J
. ) ( pl ur al i t y ) ( s t at i ng t hat t h e al t ernat i ve p r act i ce mus tb e a s e f

f e c t i v e a s t h e c h a l l e n g e d p r a c t i c e )

. El b e a r s t h e b u r d e n s o f

p r o o f a n d p e r s u a s i o n h e r e . 4 2 U. S

. C. § 2 0 0 0 e -2 (k )(1 )(A )(ii). A s the Se v e n th C irc u it C o u rt o f A p p e a ls h a s h e l d , t o p r e v a i l o n t h i s i s s u e a Ti t l e VI I p l a i n t i f f mu s tc o me forw ard w i t h evidence t hat his propo sed po l i cyw ou l d h ave les s o f a d is p a r a t e i m p a c t. A l l en v. C i t y of C hi cago , 351 F. 3d 306, 3 1 5 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ).
T h e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d n o ev id e n c e in the rec o rd i ndi cat i ng t hatanyal t ernat i ve pol i cy w o u ld ha ve l es s of a di s par at e i m pact
. H avi ng r evi ew ed t he r ecor d, w e a g ree. SE PT A i s t hus ent i t l ed t o s um m aryj udgm enton t hi s i s s ue.

I V . C oncl usi on B eca us e no r eas onabl e j ur or on t hi s r ecor d coul d fi nd t hat S E P T A ’ s h i r i n g p o l i c y i s i n c o n s i s t e n tw i t h b u s i n e s s n e c e s s i t y, w e af fi r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s gr antof sum m aryj udgm enton39 that issue

. W e a lso a ff irm the C o u rt ’s g ra n t of su m m ary j udgm enton t he al t ernat i ve pol i cyi s s ue.