NOT P 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. 09- 3512 SH A R Y N ST A G I , i ndi vi dual l yand on behal f of a l l other s s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed; WI NI F RE D L ADD, A p p e llan ts

v. NA TI ON AL R AI LRO AD PASS ENG ER CO RP OR AT I ON, t/ d /b / a AM T RA K 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 N o. 2- 03- cv- 05702) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B . B r ody

A r gued M ay28, 2010 B e f o re : M c K E E , C h ie f

J u d g e , R E N D E L L and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed : A ugus t16, 2010)

A ri R . K a rp f

, E s q . K arpf, K arpf & V i r ant 3070 B r i s t ol Pi ke B ui l di ng 2, Sui t e 231 B ens al em, PA 190202

T i m othyM . K ol m an, E s q. M i chae l F. M i r ar chi , E s q. T i m othyM . K ol m an & A s s oci at es 414 H ul m es vi l l e A venue Penndel , PA 19047 Scot tM . L emper t , E s q. A la n M . S a n d a ls , E s q . [ ARGUE D] Sandal s & A s s oci at es O ne South B r oad Str eet Sui t e 1850 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts Sar ah A ndr ew s , E s q. M or gan, L ew i s & B ocki us 301 G r antSt r eet O ne O xfor d C entr e, Sui t e 3200 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 J ames E. B ay l es , J r . , E s q. M or gan, L ew i s & B ocki us 77 W es tW acke rD r i ve 6th Fl oor C hi cago, I L 60601 W illia m J . D e la n y , E s q . [ ARGUE D] M or gan, L ew i s & B ocki us 1701 M arketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 C ouns el f orD ef endant OPI NI ON O F THE COURT R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge. Pl ai nt i ffs Sharyn St agi and W i ni fr ed Ladd br oughta cl as s act i on agai ns tthe3

N at i onal R ai l r oad Pas s engerC orpor at i on ( “A m tr ak”) , as s ert i ng thata companypol i cy req u ir ing all u n ion em p loy ee s to h av e o n e y ea r of serv ice in the ircu rren t po sit ion b ef o re theycoul d be cons i der ed forpr om ot i on has a di s par at e i m pacton femal e uni on empl oy ees i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, 42 U . S. C . § 2000e, a n d th e E q u a l P ro te c tio n c o m p o n e n t o f th e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e o f th e F if th A m e n d m e n t. T h e D istri ct C o u rt , p rese n ted w ith m o ti o n s fo r class c erti fica ti o n an d fo r sum m ary j ud gm ent, grant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of A m trak, fi nd i ng that “the p l ai nti ffs’ evi dence of di s par at e i m pactl ack[ ed] both s t at i s t i cal and pr act i cal s i gni fi canc e, ” thus concl udi ng that“the pl ai nt i ffs have f ai l ed t o m ake outa p rim a fa c ie cas e of di s cr i m i nat i on underT i t l e V I I . ” Stagiv. N at ’ lR . R . P as s engerC or p. , C i v. N o. 03- 5702, 2 0 0 9 W L 2 4 6 1 8 9 2 , at *1 (E . D . P a. A u g . 1 2 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( S tag i I I ). A l though i ti s a cl os e ca l l , w e w i l l r ever s e and r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs c o n s is te n t w ith th is o p in io n . I. A ti s s ue i n t hi s cas e i s A m tr ak’ s pol i cyr efe rr ed t o as the “one - y earbl ocki ng rul e. ” U nderthatrul e, a uni on m emberm us tbe i n hercurr entuni on pos i t i on foratl eas tone y ear i n o rdert o b e el i gibl e for prom oti on i nto a m anag em ent posi t i on . T he p oli cyst at es, “[a ] n agr eementcover ed empl oy ee maynotappl yfora pos t ed non- agr eementcover edA l though t he pol i cys ay s “i n hi s orhercurr entuni on[, ] ” the part i es agr ee thatt he 1 pol i cyhas been i nt erpr et ed and appl i ed byA m tr ak as bl ocki ng an empl oy ee w ho has not been i n hi s orhercurr entuni on pos i t i on f o r a t le a s t o n e y e a r. S ee S tag i I I, 2 0 0 9 WL 2461892, at*1 n. 4 ( “A l though t he w aythe rul e i s w r i t t en appe ar s t o pr event c o n sid e ra tio n o f

a g re e m e n t-c o v e re d e m p lo y e e s b a se d o n tim e -in -c u rre n t- uni on , s i nce a t l eas t1999 or2000, the Pol i cyhas been appl i ed cons i s t ent l yt o cons i dert i m e- i n- pos i t i on , nott i m e- i n- uni on . . . . T he l anguage of the pol i cy[s i c] w as change d i n 2004 ( aft erthe c o m m e n c e m e n t o f

th is litig a tio n ).” ). 4 pos i t i on unl es s he ors he has been i n hi s orhercurr entuni on forone y ear . ” A pp. 299. 1 T he rul e has no exce pt i ons . T he rul e w as fi r s tpr om ul gat ed on M ay1, 1994 and w as r evi s ed i n Sept ember2000, w hi ch r evi s i on w as i n for ce dur i ng the t i m e per i od r el evant f o r t h is c a s e . Pl ai nt i ffs St agi and Ladd ar e l ong- t i m e A m tr ak empl oy ees w ho have be en empl oy ed i n both i t s uni on and managementr anks dur i ng thei rcar eer s . St agi began he r car eeratA m tr ak i n 1973 as a r es ervat i on and i nform at i on cl erk, and eve ntual l yw or ked herw ayup t o var i ous uni on pos i t i ons unt i l the ea r l y1990s , w hen s he w as pr om ot ed t o a m anage m entpos i t i on. She w as i n a managementpos i t i on i n A pr i l 2002 w hen s he w as l ai d off a s a r es ul tof a c orpor at e- w i de managementr es tructur i ng eff or t . L add w as pr om ot ed t o m anage m enti n 1986 and cont i nued t o be pr om ot ed thr ough m anage m ent u n til A p ril 2 0 0 2 , w h e n h e r jo b w a s s im ilarlye lim in a ted . B e c a u se th e yh a d p re v io u sly w or ked i n A m tr ak’ s uni on r anks , theyw er e both ent i t l ed t o “bump dow n” i nt o a uni on p o sitio n b a se d o n th e ir re tain e d u n io n se n io rity . In th e y e a r f o llo w in g th e ir layof

f s, b o th appl i ed form anage m entvaca nci es , s om e of w hi ch theyhad pr evi ous l yhel d or5

supervi sed. T heyw ere bot h b l ock ed b ythe o ne-y ear rule fr om being co nsi dered fo r tho se p o sitio n s. S tag i re m a in s in h e r u n io n p o sitio n . L a d d w a s n o t ab le to re tu rn to m a n a g e m e n t b e f

o re 2 0 0 4 , w h e n sh e lef

t o n lo n g -te rm d isa b ili tya n d re tired w ith b e n e f its i nfer i ort o t hos e s he w oul d have e nj oy ed had s he bee n perm i t t ed t o acc es s a management p o s itio n . In O c to b e r 2 0 0 3 , S ta g i f ile d a c la s s c o m p la in t, a n d la te r a m e n d e d it to a d d L a d d . Pl ai nt i ffs ’ compl ai ntal l eges thatA m tr ak vi ol at ed Ti t l e V I I , 42 U . S. C . § 2000e et s eq. , and the Equal Pr ot ect i on componentof the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Fi fth A m endment b ya d o p tin g a n d a p p lyin g th e o n e -ye a r r u le to p la in tif f s . I n M ay2005, A m tr ak moved forj udgm enton the pl eadi ngs underR ul e 12( c) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed A m tr ak’ s m ot i on hol di ng th a t p lain tiff

s h a d “ m a d e o u t a p rim a f a c ie c a se ” o f

d isp a ra te im p a c t b yth e b lo c k in g ru le a t is s u e h e re . Stagiv. A m tr ak , 4 0 7 F . S u p p . 2 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 6 (E . D . P a. 20 0 5 ) ( S ta g i I ). T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d a di s coveryconfe r ence on J anuary2, 2006, and pl ai nt i ffs m oved t o compel pr oduct i on of di s coverym at er i al r el at ed t o the qual i fi cat i ons of the var i ous m anage m entpos i t i ons as w el l as the w or k hi s t or i es and otherqual i fi cat i ons of uni on empl oy ees w ho m i ghthave be en qual i fi ed form anage m entpos i t i ons ( al though t hey m i ghtbe bl ocked bythe one- y earrul e) . T he courthel d addi t i onal di s coveryconfe r ence s on A pr i l 4, 2007 and M ay4, 2007. O ne of the i s s ues di s cus s ed ateac h confe r ence w as th e u se a n d a v a ilab ili tyo f q u a lific a tio n s d a ta. A m tra k su b se q u e n tlyp ro d u c e d c e rta inO n ap p ea l, p lai n ti ff s arg u e tha t th e D istri ct C o u rterred in ru li n g o n the s u m m ary 2 j udgm entm ot i on w hen i tdi d beca us e the D i s tr i ctC our thad i nform ed the part i es thatt he J u l y2 1 h e a r i n g wo u l d b e l i mi t e d t o q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o c l a s s c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Be c a u s e we wi l l r e v e r s e th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t s ’ s o r d e rg r a n t i n g s u mm a ryj u d g me n to n o th e rg r o u n d s , we n e e d n o t d e c id e th is is s u e . T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1331 and 3 1 3 4 3 (a )( 4 ). W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . 6 em p loy ee d ata in Ju ly2 0 0 7 . B ase d in p art on this da ta, p lai n ti ff s su b m itted a n ex p ert r eportbyM ark R . K i l l i ngs w or th on O ct ober23, 2007. A m tr ak s ubm i t t ed a r es pons i ve expertr eportbyD avi d W . G r i ffi n on J anuary25, 2008. P la in tif f s f ile d a m o tio n f

o r c la s s c e rt if

ic a tio n u n d e r R u le 2 3 o n F e b ru a ry 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 . B efor e thatm ot i on w as ful l ybr i efe d, A m tr ak moved fors um m aryj udgm enton A pr i l 21, 2008. B r i efi ng w as compl et e forthe cl as s cert i fi cat i on m ot i on on J une 6, 2008 and for the s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on on N ovember17, 2008. A hear i ng w as hel d on J ul y21, 2009, atw hi ch ea ch party ’ s expertt es t i fi ed. B ym emora ndum and or derdat ed A ugus t12, 2009, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed A m tr ak’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on. S tag i I I, 2 0 0 9 WL 2 2461892, at*13. Pl ai nt i ffs t i m el yappea l ed. 3 II . A . T i t l e V I I and D i s par at e I m pact U n d e r T itl e V II o f

th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 5 , itis u n law f

u l f o r a n e m p lo y e r to “l i m i t , s egr egat e, orcl as s i fyhi s empl oy ees orappl i cant s forempl oym enti n anyw ay w hi ch w oul d depr i ve ort end t o depr i ve anyi ndi vi dual of empl oym entoppor tuni t i es or otherw i s e adve r s el yaff ecthi s s t atus as an empl oy ee, beca us e of s uch i ndi vi dual ’ s r ace ,7

co lor, reli g ion , sex , o r na ti o n al origin . ” 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e-2 (a)(2). T hi s pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tdi s par at e i m pacti s di s t i nctfr om di s par at e tr eatm entbyan empl oy er , w hi ch requi res a show i ng of d i scr i m i natoryi ntent . U nd er Sect i on 20 00 e-2( a)( 2), an o therw i se fac i al l yneutr al bus i nes s pr act i ce thatdi s pr oport i onat el yaff ect s ori m pact s a pr ot ect ed g ro u p m a yb e u n la w f

u l. G r iggs v. D uke Pow erC o. , 4 0 1 U .S . 4 2 4 , 4 3 1 (1 9 7 1 ); see al so Lan ni ngv . SEPTA , 181 F. 3d 478, 485 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . “Ti t l e V I I s tr i ves t o achi eve eq u ali tyo f o p p o rtu n ityb yroo ti n g o u t art ifi cial, arb itrary , an d u n n ec essa ry empl oy er - cr eat ed barr i er s t o pr ofes s i onal devel opm entthathave a di s cr i m i nat oryi m pact upon i ndi vi dual s . ” C onnect i cut v. Teal , 457 U . S. 440, 451 ( 1982) ( i nt ernal quot at i on ma r k s o mi t t e d ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e S u p r e me Co u r th a s n o t e d th a t“ [ i ] n c o n s i d e r i n g c l a i ms of di s par at e i m pact. . . thi s C our thas cons i s t ent l yfocus ed on empl oym entand pr om ot i on r equi r ement s thatcr eat e a di s cr i m i nat orybart o oppor t uni t i es . T h is C o u rt h a s n e v e r . . . re q u ir[ e d ] th e f

o c u s to b e p lac e d . . . o n th e o v e ra ll n u m b e r o f m in o rityo r f

e m a le appl i cant s actual l yhi r ed orpr om ot ed. ” Id . a t 4 5 0 . A p rim a f

a c ie c a se o f

d isp a ra te im p a c t d isc rim in a tio n h a s tw o c o m p o n e n ts. F irst, a pl ai nt i ff musti dent i fy“the s peci fi c empl oym entpr act i ce thati s chal l enged. ” W at s on v. F t . W orth B an k & Trust , 487 U . S. 977, 994 ( 1988) . Second, the pl ai nt i ff musts how t hat the empl oym entpr act i ce “ caus es a di s par at e i m pacton the bas i s of r ace , col or , r el i gi on, s ex, ornat i onal or i gi n. ” 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 2( k) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) . T o s how caus at i on, the pl ai nt i ff mustpr es ent“s t at i s t i cal evi dence of a ki nd and degr ee s uffi ci entt o s how thatt heT h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t re a c h th e iss u e o f b u sin e ss n e c e ss ityb e c a u se it h e ld 4 th a tp l a i n t i f

f f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e a n d e n d e d i t s i n q u i ry. T he s t atut e al s o al l ow s pl ai nt i ff t o s how thatan al t ernat i ve empl oym entpr act i ce 5 e x ists th a t h a s a les s d isp a ra te im p a c t an d w o u ld a lso se rv e th e b u sin e ss ’s le g iti m a te in ter e st a n d th e e m p lo y e r re f u se s to a d o p t it . 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -2 (k )(1 )(A )(ii); Lanni ng , 181 F. 3d at489- 90. T hi s al t ernat i ve i s notr el evanther e. 8 pr act i ce i n ques t i on has caus ed exc l us i on of appl i cant s forj obs orpr om ot i ons beca us e of thei rm ember s hi p i n a pr ot ect ed gr oup. ” W at s on , 4 8 7 U .S . at 9 9 4 ; s ee al s o EE O Cv. G r eyhound Li nes , 6 3 5 F .2 d 1 8 8 , 1 9 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). If a p lain tiff

m a k e s o u t a p rim a f

a c ie c a se , the b u rd e n sh if ts to th e e m p lo y e r to s how thatthe empl oym entpr act i ce a ti s s ue i s j ob r el at ed forthe pos i t i on i n ques t i on and i s c o n s i s t e n tw i th b u s i n e s s n e c e s s i ty. W at s on , 487 U . S. at994; 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 4 2( k) ( 1) ( cl ar i fy i ng thatt o m ai nt ai n a cl ai m , pl ai nt i ff mustm ake outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e and the empl oy erm us tthen “f ai l [] t o demonstr at e thatthe cha l l enged pr act i ce i s j ob r el at ed fo r th e p o sit ion in q u esti o n an d co n sist en t w ith b u sine ss n ec essity ”). 5 B . T he P ri m a F aci e C ase A s the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed, ther e i s no “r i gi d m athemat i cal form ul a” c our t s can m a n d a te o r a p p ly to d e te rm in e w h e th e r p la in tif f s h a v e e s ta b lis h e d a p ri m a f a c ie c a s e . S tag i I I, 2 0 0 9 W L 2 4 6 1 8 9 2 , at * 3 . If sta tistica l ev id e n c e is u se d , as it typ ica llyw ill b e in di s par at e i m pactcas es , i tm us tbe “s uffi ci ent l ys ubs t ant i al ” t o r ai s e “a n i nfer ence of caus at i on. ” Id . ( quot i ng W at s on , 487 U . S. at994- 95) . T he Supr eme C our thas not p ro v id e d a n yd e f

in iti v e g u id a n c e a b o u t w h e n sta tistica l ev id e n c e is s u f f icie n tlyT echni cal l y , a s t andar d devi at i on i s defi ned as “a meas ur e of s pr ead, di s per s i on, 6 orvar i abi l i tyof a gr oup of num ber s equal t o the s quar e r ootof the var i ance of thatgr oup o f n u m b e rs .” D . B a ld u s & J . C o le , Stat is t i cal P r oof of D is cr i m i nat i on 359 ( 1980) . T he “var i ance ” of the gr oup of num ber s i s comput ed bys ubtr act i ng the “mean, ” oraver age, of al l the n um bers, “squari ng the resul t i ng differ ence, and co m pu t i ng the m ean o f t hese s quar ed di ffe r ence s . ” I d. at361. 9 s ubs t ant i al , buta l eadi ng tr eat i s e not es that“[t ] he mostw i del yus ed means of s how i ng that an o b serv ed d ispa ri tyin o u tcom es is su ff ici en tl ysu b stan ti al t o sati sfythe p lai n ti ff ’s b u rd e n o f

p ro v in g a d v e rse im p a c t is to sh o w th a t th e d isp a rityis s u f f icie n tlylar g e th a t it i s hi ghl yunl i kel yt o have oc curr ed atr andom. ” 1 B . L i ndemann & P. G r os s m an, E m pl oym ent

D is cr i m i nat i on Law 124 ( 4th ed. 2007) ( her ei naft er“Li ndemann & G r os s m an”) . T hi s i s typi cal l ydone bythe us e of t es t s of s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e, w hi ch d e te rm in e th e p ro b a b ility o f th e o b s e rv e d d is p a ri ty o b ta in in g b yc h a n c e . T her e ar e tw o r el at ed conc ept s as s oci at ed w i th s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e: m eas ur es of p rob ab il ityleve ls an d stan d ard d ev iat ion . P rob ab il ityleve ls ( also ca ll ed “p -va lues ”) a re s i m pl ythe pr obabi l i tythatthe obs erved di s par i tyi s r andom— the r es ul tof cha nce f lu c tu a tio n o r d istrib u tio n . F o r e x a m p le, a 0 .0 5 p ro b a b ili tylev e l m e a n s th a t o n e w o u ld ex p ec t t o see the o b serv ed d ispa ri tyo cc u r bych an ce o n lyo n e ti m e in tw en tyca ses— there is o n lya f

iv e p e rc e n t ch a n c e th a t th e d isp a rityis ra n d o m . A sta n d a rd d e v iatio n is a u n it of m eas ur ementthatal l ow s s t at i s t i ci ans t o m eas ur e al l types of di s par i t i es i n comm on t erm s . I n thi s cont ext , the gr eat erthe numberof s t andar d devi at i ons fr om the mean, t he

6 great er the li keli ho od that the o bserved resul ti s not due t o ch ance. To off er s om e sense10

of the r el at i ons hi p betw een thes e tw o m eas ur es , tw o s t andar d devi at i ons corr es ponds r oughl yt o a pr obabi l i tyl evel of 0. 05; thr ee s t andar d devi at i ons corr es pond t o a p ro b a b ility le v e l o f

0 .0 0 2 7 . See L i ndemann & G r os s m an 126 n. 85 and ac company i ng te x t. A s a le g a l m a tte r, t h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s ta te d th a t “ [ a ]s a g e n e ra l ru le f o r . . . lar g e sa m p les , if th e d if f e re n c e b e tw e e n th e e x p e c ted v a lu e a n d th e o b se rv e d n u m b e r is gr eat erthan tw o orthr ee s t andar d devi at i ons , then the hypothes i s thatthe [r es ul t ] w as r andom w oul d be s us pectt o a s oci al s ci ent i s t . ” C as taneda v. P ar t i da , 430 U . S. 482, 496 n. 17 ( 1977) . A ddi t i onal l y , m anycourt s acc epta 0. 05 pr obabi l i tyl evel ( orbel ow ) as s u f f ic ie n t to ru le o u t th e p o s s ib ility th a t th e d is p a ri ty o c c u rr e d a t r a n d o m . See, e. g. , W ais om e v. P or tA uth. , 9 4 8 F . 2 d 1 3 7 0 , 1 3 7 6 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) (“S o cial scien ti sts co n side r a fi ndi ng of tw o s t andar d devi at i ons s i gni fi cant , m eani ng ther e i s aboutone cha nce i n 20 thatthe expl anat i on fora devi at i on coul d be r andom and t he devi at i on m us tbe ac count ed f o r b yso m e f

a c to r o th e r th a n c h a n c e .” (c itatio n o m itt e d )); P a lm e r v . Sh u ltz , 815 F. 2d 84, 92- 96 ( D . C . C i r . 1987) ( not i ng that“s t at i s t i cal evi dence m eet i ng the . 05 l evel of s i gni fi canc e . . . [i s ] cert ai nl ys uffi ci entt o s uppor tan i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on” (c ita tio n a n d in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d , a lte ra tio n s in o ri g in a l) ). I n addi t i on t o us i ng form al m eas ur es of s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e, s om e court s have a lso re lied u p o n th e “ 8 0 p e rc e n t ru le” f ro m th e E q u a l E m p lo ym e n t O p p o rtu n ity C om m i ssi on ’s (EE O C ) U nifor m G uidel i nes on E m ploy ee S el ect i on P rocedu res t o assess11

w h e th e r a p la in tif

f h a s e s ta b lis h e d a p ri m a f a c ie d is p a ra te im p a c t c a s e . See, e. g. , St outv. P ot t er , 2 7 6 F .3 d 1 1 1 8 , 1 1 2 4 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (a p p ly in g “ f o u r-f if th s ru le” a n d c a lli n g it “ru le of thu m b ” c o u rt s u se w h en co n side ri n g ad v erse im p ac t of selec ti o n p roc ed u res); B os t on P ol i ce Supe r i orO f f i cer s Fed’ n v. C i t

y of B os t on , 147 F. 3d 13, 21 ( 1s tC i r . 1998) (a f f irm in g d istric t co u rt’s u se o f f o u r-f if th s ru le in c o n tex t o f

c o n se n t d e c re e , h o ld in g th a t, al though “vi ol at i on of the four - fi fths rul e, s t andi ng al one, i s notconcl us i ve evi dence of d iscri m ination , ” itn o n ethe less serv es a s an “a p p rop ri ate b en ch m ark ”); Sm i th v. X er ox C or p. , 19 6 F . 3d 35 8, 36 5 (2d C i r. 19 99 ) ( fi nd i ng E E O C G uidel i nes “pe rs uasi ve”). T hese G u idelines are co d ifi ed at 29 C . F . R . § 1 6 0 7 . 4 (D ), en ti tl ed “A d v erse im p ac t and the ‘f o u rf if th s ru le ,’” a n d th e ys ta te , in re le v a n t p a rt ,

A se lec tio n ra te f

o r a n yra c e , se x , o r e th n ic g ro u p w h ich is l es s than four - fi fths ( 4/ 5) ( orei ghtyper cent ) of the r at e forthe gr oup w i th t he hi ghes tr at e w i l l gener al l ybe r egar ded bythe F e d e ra l en f

o rc e m e n t ag e n c ies a s e v id e n c e o f a d v e rse im p a c t, w hi l e a gr eat erthan four - fi fths r at e w i l l gener al l ynotbe r egar ded byFeder al enfor cementagenc i es as evi dence of a d v e rse im p a c t. 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 0 7 .4 (D ). E E O C G ui del i nes ar e ent i t l ed onl yt o Skidm ore d e f e re n c e , Sk idm o re v . Sw ift & C o. , 3 2 3 U . S . 1 3 4 , 1 4 0 (19 4 4 ), u n d e r w h ich E E O C G u id e lin e s “ g e t[ ] d e f e re n c e in ac co rda n ce w ith the th o rou g h n ess o f [ their] r ese arc h an d the p ersu asiv en ess o f [ their] r eas oni ng. ” Elv . SEPTA , 479 F. 3d 232, 244 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( ci t i ng EE O Cv. A r abI ti s wo r th n o t i n g th a ta l th o u g h th e S u p r e me Co u r ti n i t i a l l ys a i d th a tE E OC 7 G ui del i nes w er e ent i t l ed t o “gr eatdefe r ence , ” the Supr eme C our ti t s el f has m ade i tcl ear thatthi s i s notthe ca s e. A s w e not ed i n Elv . SEPTA : “I tdoes notappea rthatthe E E O C ’s G u id e lin e s a re e n tit led to g re a t d e f e re n c e . W h ile s o m e e a rlyc a se s s o h e ld in in te rp re tin g T itle V II , G r iggs , 401 U . S. at434 . . . m or e r ece ntcas es have he l d thatthe E E O C i s ent i t l ed onl yt o Skidm ore defe r ence . ” 479 F. 3d at244 ( ci t i ng A r ab A m er i can O il , 4 9 9 U .S . a t 2 5 7 ). A r el at ed conc ern, thatthe s t at i s t i cal di s par i tybe “s ubs t ant i al , ” has been he l d out 8 a s a n a d d itio n a l r e q u ir e m e n t f o r a p la in tif

f ’s p ri m a f

a c ie c a s e . See, e. g. , Thom as v. Metr of l ight , I nc. , 814 F. 2d 1506, 1511 n. 4 ( 10th C i r . 1987) ( s ugges t i ng thatcourt s m ay re q u ir e , in a d d itio n to s ta tis tic a l s ig n if ic a n c e , th a t th e o b s e rv e d d is p a ri ty b e s u b s ta n tia l) . 12 A m er i can O i lC o. , 499 U . S. 244, 257 ( 1991) ) . T he “80 pe r centrul e” orthe “f our - fi fths 7 rul e” ha s come unders ubs t ant i al cr i t i ci s m , and has notbeen pa r t i cul ar l yper s uas i ve, at l e a s ta s a p r e r e q u i s i t e f

o rma k i n g o u ta p r i ma f a c i e d i s p a r a t e i mp a c tc a s e . Th e S u p r e me C our thas not ed that“[t ] hi s enfor cements t andar d has been c r i t i ci zed on t echni cal gr ounds

. . . and i thas notpr ovi ded more than a rul e of thum b forthe court s . ” W at s on , 487 at995 n .3 . See al

s o L in d e m a n n & G ro ss m a n 1 3 0 (n o tin g th a t th e 8 0 p e rc e n t ru le “ is in h e re n tly le s s p ro b a tiv e th a n s ta n d a rd d e v ia tio n a n a lysis ” ); E . S h o b e n , D i f f er ent i alP as s - Fai lR at es in E m p loym en t Te sti n g : Sta tisti ca l P ro o f U n d er Tit le V

II, 91 H arv. L . R ev. 793, 806 ( 1 9 7 8 ) ( a r g u i n g th a tth e “ f o u r - f i f th s ru l e s h o u l d b e a b a n d o n e d a l t o g e th e r ” a n d th a t“ f l a ws i n the four - fi fths rul e ca n be el i m i nat ed byr epl aci ng i tw i th a t es tof . . . s t at i s t i cal s ig n if ic a n c e ” ). A nothernon- s t at i s t i cal s t andar d thathas been di s cus s ed i n the cont extof as s es s i ng w h e th e r a p lain tiff

h a s m a d e o u t a p rim a f a c ie c a se is th e re q u ire m e n t th a t th e d isp a rity h av e “ p rac ti ca l si g n ifi ca n ce . ” F o r ex am p le, L ind em an n an d G ross m an w ri te th at “[ t] o 8T h is re q u ire m e n t, ho w e v e r, ap p e a rs to b e d e riv e d f ro m th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s e a rly di s par at e i m pactcas es thatw er e dec i ded pr i ort o the us e of f or m al not i ons of s t at i s t i cal sig n if ica n c e a s th e m e a n s b yw h ich c a u sa tio n w a s to b e d e m o n stra ted . In th e se e a rly form ul at i ons of the caus at i on r equi r ement , r atherthan r equi r i ng a part i cul arl evel of s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e, the Supr eme C our tr equi r ed thatthe r el evantrul e had a “ s u b s ta n tia lly” d is p ro p o rt io n a te e f f e c t. See, e. g. , G r iggs , 401 U . S. at426 ( exami ni ng “r equi r ement s [that ] oper at e[d] t o di s qual i fyN egr oes ata s ubs t ant i al l yhi gherr at e than w h ite a p p lica n ts” ); A l bem ar l e Paper Co. v. Moody , 422 U . S. 405, 425 ( 1975) ( pl ai nt i ffs ar e r equi r ed t o s how “thatthe t es t s i n ques t i on s el ectappl i cant s forhi r e orpr om ot i on i n a ra c ial p a ttern sig n if

ica n tlyd if

f e re n t f ro m th a t o f

th e p o o l o f

a p p lica n ts” ); W

as hi ngt on v. D a v is , 426 U . S. 229, 246- 47 ( 1976) ( “hi r i ng and pr om ot i on pr act i ces di s qual i fy i ng su b sta n tiallyd isp ro p o rtio n a te n u m b e r o f b lac k s” ); D othar d v. R aw l i ns on , 433 U . S. 321, 3 2 9 (1 9 7 7 ) (e m p lo ym e n t sta n d a rd s th a t “s e lec t ap p lica n ts f o r h ire in a sig n if

ica n tly d isc rim in a to ryp a ttern ” ). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s m a d e it cle a r th a t th e “ su b sta n tial” l anguage w as m eantt o addr es s the pl ai nt i ff’ s bur den t o demonstr at e ca us at i on. A s the Supr eme C our tnot ed i n W at s on , the S u p re m e C o u rt’s “ f o rm u latio n s . . . h a v e c o n sis ten tly s tr es s ed thats t at i s t i cal di s par i t i es m us tbe s uffi ci ent l ys ubs t ant i al thattheyr ai s e . . . an in f e re n c e o f c a u sa tio n ,” in o th e r w o rd s, th a t th e sta tistica l d isp a rities a re a d e q u a te to “show that the p ract i ce i n q uest i on has caus ed the exc l us i on of appl i cant s forj obs or pr om ot i ons beca us e of thei rm ember s hi p i n a pr ot ect ed gr oup. ” 487 U . S. at994- 95 ( O ’ C o n n o r , J . , p l u r a l i ty o p i n i o n ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . T h e r e q u i r e m e n to f “ s u b s t a n t i a l i ty” w as notm eantt o i ntr oduce a n addi t i onal bur den on the pl ai nt i ff a bove thatof off er i ng e v id e n c e o f

c a u s a tio n . 13 guar d agai ns tthe pos s i bi l i tythata fi ndi ng of adve r s e i m pactcoul d r es ul tfr om the s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e of a tr i vi al di s par i tyora meani ngl es s di ffe r ence i n r es ul t s , the U ni form G ui del i nes on E m pl oy ee Sel ect i on Pr ocedur es and s om e court s have a dopt ed an addi t i onal t es tforadver s e i m pact : thata s t at i s t i cal l ys i gni fi cantdi s par i tyal s o has p ra c tic a l s ig n if

ic a n c e .” L in d e m a n n & G ro s s m a n 1 3 1 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). W e ca n i dent i fyno C our tof A ppeal s thathas found “pr act i cal s i gni fi canc e” t o be a req u ir em en t fo r a p lai n ti ff ’s prim a f ac ie ca se o f d ispa rate im p ac t, inclu d ing the T h ir d14

C i r cui t . T he “pr act i cal s i gni fi canc e” l anguage s t ems fr om the EE O C U ni form G ui del i nes on E m pl oy ee Sel ect i on Pr ocedur es , w hi ch not e that“[s ] m al l erdi ffe r ence s i n s el ect i on ra te m a yn e v e rth e les s c o n stitu te a d v e rse im p a c t, w h e re th e ya re sig n if ica n t in b o th s t at i s t i cal and pr act i cal t erm s . ” 29 C . F. R . § 1607. 4( D ) ( emphasi s added) . H ow ever , even the non- bi ndi ng E E O C G ui del i nes onl ys ugges tthat“pr act i cal s i gni fi canc e” mi ghtbe a re q u ir e m e n t w h e n d if

f e re n c e s in th e s e le c tio n ra te w e re g re a te r t h a n e ig h ty p e rc e n t. Id . T h e o n e c a s e id e n tif

ie d b yL in d e m a n n a n d G ro s s m a n , Wa is o me , n o t e d th a tth e E E OC G u id e lin e s, in c lu d in g th e a f o re m e n tio n e d o n e , “p ro v id e n o m o re th a n a ru le o f th u m b to ai d i n det erm i ni ng w hetheran empl oym entpr act i ce ha s a di s par at e i m pact . ” 948 F. 2d at 1 3 7 6 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ), c itedin L i ndemann & G r os s m an 131 n. 98. T he Second Ci r cui tC our tof A ppeal s i n Wa is o me di d di s r egar d a fi ndi ng of s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e ( 2. 68 s t andar d devi at i ons ) , buton the gr ounds thatthe A fr i canA m er i can pa s s r at e fora w r i t t en exa m i nat i on w as 87% of the w hi t e pas s r at e, and thatt he s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e of the di s par i tyw oul d di s appea ri f j us ttw o addi t i onal A fr i canA m er i can c andi dat es , outof a t ot al of 64 A fr i can- A m er i can c andi dat es , had pas s ed the w r i t t en exa m i nat i on. 948 F. 2d at1376- 77. O thercourt s have a l s o found that , i n cas es w h ere the “ stat ist ical si g n ifi ca n ce ” o f th e re su lt s w o u ld d isap p ea r i f th e n u m b ers w ere a lte re d v e ry sl ig h tly, th e p la in tif f f a ile d to m a k e o u t a p ri m a f a c ie c a s e . See, e. g. , Aps l ey v. B oei ng C o. , - - - F. Supp. 2d - - - , N o. 05- 1368, 2010 W L 2670880, at*18 ( D . K an. J une 3 0 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( n o t i n g th a t“ [ s ] t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e d o e s n o tt e l l u s wh e th e rth e d i s p a r i tywe15

a re o b s e rv in g is m e a n in g f u l in a p ra c tic a l s e n s e n o r w h a t m a yh a v e c a u s e d th e d is p a ri ty,” and fi ndi ng thatbeca us e of the fa ctthati f “f or ty - ei ghtm or e peopl e overthe age of 40 w o u ld h a v e b e e n h ire d , P lain tiff s’ h irin g sta tistics w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n sta tistica lly s i gni fi cant , ” pl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e) . A s “pr act i cal ” s i gni fi canc e has notbeen a dopt ed byourC our t , and no otherC our tof A ppeal s r equi r es a s how i ng of p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f

i c a n c e , we d e c l i n e t o r e q u i r e s u c h a s h o wi n g a s p a r to f a p l a i n t i f

f ’ s p r i ma f a c ie c a s e . In s u m , to e s ta b lis h a p ri m a f a c ie c a s e o f

d is p a ra te im p a c t in a T itle V II c a s e , a pl ai nt i ff must( 1) i dent i fya s peci fi c empl oym entpol i cyorpr act i ce of the empl oy erand (2 ) p ro f f e r e v id e n c e , typ ica llysta tistica l ev id e n c e , (3 ) o f a k in d a n d d e g re e su f

f icie n t to s how thatthe pr act i ce i n ques t i on has caus ed exc l us i on of appl i cant s forj obs or p ro m o tio n s (4 ) b e c a u s e o f th e irm e m b e rs h ip in a p ro te c te d g ro u p . See W at s on , 48 7 U. S. a t 9 9 4 . W ith re sp e c t to m e e tin g h e r b u rd e n w ith re sp e c t to (3 ), a p lain tiff w ill typ ica lly h a v e to d e m o n stra te th a t th e d isp a rityin im p a c t is su f f icie n tlylar g e th a t itis h ig h ly unl i kel yt o have oc curr ed atr andom, and t o do s o byus i ng one of s ever al t es t s of sta tistica l sig n if

ica n c e . T h e re is n o p re c ise th re sh o ld th a t m u st b e m e t in e v e ryc a se , b u t a fi ndi ng of s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e w i th a pr obabi l i tyl evel atorbel ow 0. 05, orat2 t o 3 s ta n d a rd d e v ia tio n s o r g re a te r, w ill typ ic a lly b e s u f f ic ie n t. See Castaneda , 430 U . S. at 4 9 6 n .1 7 . I I I . T he D i s tr i ctC our tD eci s i on16

A s not ed above , the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed A m tr ak’ s s um m aryj udgm entm ot i on on the gr ounds thatPl ai nt i ffs fai l ed t o carrythei rbur den of pr es ent i ng a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s par at e i m pact . T hi s deci s i on w as bas ed on tw o m ai n cons i der at i ons : ( 1) that“the appl i cantpool pl ai nt i ffs anal y zed t o demonstr at e the di s par at e i m pactof A m tr ak’ s pol i cy err oneous l ycompar es empl oy ees w ho m aynothave the mi ni m al qual i fi cat i ons forthe part i cul arj obs ati s s ue, ” and ( 2) that“w hen vi ew ed i n cont ext , pl ai nt i ffs ’ evi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on l acks pr act i cal s i gni fi canc e. ” S tag i I I, 2009 W L 2461892, at*13. T he D istric t C o u rt’s r e a so n in g b e h in d th e se c o n c lu sio n s is n u a n c e d a n d w o rth c o n sid e rin g in so m e d e tail. T he D i s tr i ctC our t , i n l ay i ng outthe s t andar d fora pr i m a fa ci e di s par at e i m pact ca se, co rrectl yn o ted th at th e p lai n ti ff d o es n o t nee d to o ff

er p roo f o f th e e m p loy er’s su b jec tiv e in ten t to d isc rim in a te, b u t th a t, i n ste a d , sh e m u st “ f irst id e n tifyth e sp e c if

ic empl oym entpr act i ce thati s chal l enged” and then s he must“s how caus at i on” byoffe r i ng “s t at i s t i cal evi dence of a ki nd and degr ee s uffi ci entt o s how thatthe pr act i ce i n ques t i on h a s c a u se d th e e x c lu sio n o f a p p lica n ts f

o r jo b s o r p ro m o tio n s b e c a u se o f th e ir m ember s hi p i n a pr ot ect ed gr oup. ” S tag i I I, 2009 W L 2461892, at*3 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o not ed thatthe “s t at i s t i cal di s par i t i es m us tbe s uffi ci ent l ys ubs t ant i al s uch thattheyr ai s e an i nfer ence of ca us at i on. ” Id . (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen s t at ed thatther e i s no “r i gi d m athemat i cal form ul a that17

s at i s fi es the s uffi ci ent l ys ubs t ant i al s t andar d i n the di s par at e i m pactanal y s i s . ” Id . ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . B utr atherthan di s cus s the i m por t ance of var i ous m eas ur es of s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e, part i cul ar l yw i th r es pectt o demonstr at i ng t hat the di s par i tyi s unl i kel yt o have be en the pr oductof cha nce, the D i s tr i ctC our ti ns t ead r efe r ence d t he EE O C G ui del i nes “ei ghtyper cent ” rul e. T he D i s tr i ctC our ts t at ed that“the Supr eme C our thas i ndi cat ed thatthe gui dance of thi s admi ni s tr at i ve bodys houl d be cons i der ed w i th ‘ gr eatdefe r ence , ’ and no cons ens us has devel oped ar ound anyal t ernat i ve s t andar d. ” Id . ( quot i ng G r iggs , 4 0 1 U .S . at 4 3 3 -3 4 ). T h e D istric t C o u rt d id n o te th a t th is rul e “i s noti nt ended t o be an a bs ol ut e r equi r ement . ” Id . A ppl y i ng i t s s t at ementof the l aw t o the fa ct s of the ca s e bef or e i t , the D i s tr i ct C our tnot ed thatPl ai nt i ffs s at i s fi ed the fi r s tpartof thei rpr i m a fa ci e ca s e byi dent i fy i ng th e o n e -ye a r r u le a s th e s p e c if ic e m p lo ym e n t p ra c tic e b e in g c h a lle n g e d . Id . at*4. T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen conduc t ed an e xt ended di s cus s i on of the s t at i s t i cal evi dence of d ispa rate im p ac t of

fe red b yP lai n ti ff

s in the fo rm o f th e e x p ert repo rto f D r. K illin g s w o rt h , a n d th e c ri tic is m o f th a t r e p o rt b yA m tr a k ’s e x p e rt , D r. G ri f f in . T h e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th a t th e o n e -y e a r ru le m a k e s th is s itu a tio n e q u iv a len t to an “e ntr ance r equi r ement ” ca s e, w hi ch means thatthe pool of a c tu a l appl i cant s forthe pos i t i on w i l l under - r epr es entthos e w ho w oul d otherw i s e qual i fy , beca us e the r equi r ement itse lf w o u ld d isc o u ra g e th e p e o p le w h o a re c laim in g th a t th e re q u ire m e n t h a s a d isp a ra te im p a c t f ro m a p p lyin g . Id . at * 5 . T h e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t “[ i]n su c h c a se s, it is18

pr opert o es t abl i s h di s par at e i m pactthr ough r efe r ence t o a r eas onabl e pr oxyforthe pool of i ndi vi dual s actual l yaff ect ed bythe al l eged di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id . ( i nt ernal quot at i on m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tthen di s cus s ed D r . K i l l i ngs w or th’ s m ethod forcr eat i ng pr oxy p o o ls. T h e k e yp a rt o f D r. K ill in g sw o rth ’s m e th o d o f c re a tin g th e p ro x yp o o ls is th is m ult i -s t ep p rocess : ( 1) I den t i fyeac h m anage m entvaca ncyoccurr i ng dur i ng the t i m e ati s s ue ( betw een M arc h 8 , 2 0 0 2 an d Ju n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 ). ( 2) O f thatful l s etof vac anci es , i s ol at e the vac anci es thatw er e fi l l ed bya uni on em p loy ee (w h ich w e w il l r ef er to a s a “

job fil l”). ( 3) Foreac h s ucce s s ful uni on empl oy ee, i dent i fythe j ob t i t l e thatthe uni on empl oy ee ha d pr i orto g e tti n g th e m a n a g e m e n t jo b (w h ich w e w ill re f e r to as a “f ee d er job ”). ( 4) D ef i ne a “ FeederPool ” fora part i cul arm anage m entvaca ncyas the s etof peopl e w ho had the s ame j ob t i t l e as the s ucce s s ful candi dat e forthat vaca ncyon t he dat e j us tbefor e the vac ancyw as fi l l ed. D r . K i l l i ngs w or th’ s m odel , us i ng the above appr oach, i dent i fi ed 716 s epar at e “Fee der Pool s , ” ea ch t i ed t o a s peci fi c managementvaca ncy , ata s peci fi c poi nti n t i m e. E ach e n tryi n a p o o l i s c a l l e d a “ c a n d i d a c y , ” r a th e rth a n a c a n d i d a t e o rp e r s o n b e c a u s e th e s a me pot ent i al appl i cant s ( orpeopl e) coul d be i n m or e than one Fee derPool . A ft erdi s cus s i ng D r . K i l l i ngs w or th’ s m ethod of cr eat i ng the Feede rPool s , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound that “[b] as ed on the i nform at i on pr ovi ded t o D r . K i l l i ngs w or th byA m tr ak, pl ai nt i ffs ’ m ethod i s a r eas onabl e one. ” Id . a t * 6 .T h e D istri ct C o u rtalso n o ted th at us ing an “u n co rrected ” c o n v en ti o n al ch i- sq u are 9 tes t to a n a ly z e th e d a ta, D r. K ill in g sw o rth ’s r e su lts w e re e v e n m o re sta tistica lly sign ifi ca n t ( in term s o f b eing u n li k elyto h av e o cc u rred at ran d o m ), w ith a stan d ard d e v ia tio n m e a s u re o f

8 .4 2 . 19 T h e D istric t C o u rt o b

jec ted , h o w e v e r, to D r. K ill in g sw o rth ’s d e c isio n to “aggr egat e” a l l of the i ndi vi dual FeederPool s i nt o “one gi antpool ” ( the “A ggr egat ed Pool ”) i n or dert o anal y ze “ the degr ee t o w hi ch the Pol i cydi s qual i fi ed w om en i n the A ggr egat ed Pool r el at i ve t o m en. ” Id . Speci fi cal l y , D r . K i l l i ngs w or th combi ned al l 716 in d iv id u a l F e e d e r P o o ls in to o n e la rg e p o o l in o rd e r t o c o n d u c t h is s ta tis tic a l a n a lysis . T he D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thatw hen D r . K i l l i ngs w or th anal y zed the dat a us i ng a “c orr ect ed p rob itan aly sis” (w h ich c o rrects fo r th e f ac t th at th e sa m e ind ividu al m igh t app ea r i n m o re than on e po ol) , the resul t s y i el ded a st and ard dev i at i on of 3 . 85 5, w i th a p -val ue o f l ess than 0. 001— r es ul t s w hi ch the D i s tr i ctC our tacknow l edged w er e “unl i kel yt o have o c c u rr e d a s a re s u lt o f

c h a n c e a lo n e .” Id . 9 D es pi t e the s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e of thi s r es ul t , how ever , the D i s tr i ctC our tfound thatPl ai nt i ffs had notdone enough t o carrythei rpr i m a fa ci e bur den. Fi r s t , the D i s tr i ct C our tw as convi nced byA m tr ak’ s ar gum entthatD r . K i l l i ngs w or th’ s anal y s i s w as fl aw ed, an d that the s tat ist ical si g n ifi ca n ce o f h is r esu ltw as th u s irrelev an t. A m tr ak ’s ex p ert, D r. G rif f in , o f f e re d a re p o rt d e m o n stra tin g th a t if o n e d o e s n o t co m b in e th e 7 1 6 F e e d e r P o o ls i nt o one l ar ge A ggr egat ed Pool , and i f, i ns t ead, one j us texami nes w hetherw om en i n eac h i ndi vi dual FeederPool w er e i nel i gi bl e ata gr eat erthan expe ct ed l evel ( gi ven the20

ineligibil ityrate o f th at pa rt icular p o o l) , o n e d o es n o t fi n d that w o m en w ere d is a d v a n ta g e d re la tiv e to m e n a t a s ta tis tic a lly sig n if ic a n t le v e l. D r . G r i ffi n det erm i ned thi s byfi r s tdet erm i ni ng the per cent age of i nel i gi bl e men and w om en i n a part i cul arFeederPool ( i . e. , i f 50 outof 500 peopl e ar e bl ocked, the t ot al i nel i gi bi l i tyr at e w oul d be 10% ) . N ext , D r . G r i ffi n m ul t i pl i ed thatper cent age bythe t ot al n u m b e r o f

w o m e n in th e p o o l to d e ter m in e th e n u m b e r o f “ e x p e c ted ” in e lig ib les (i.e., if ther e w er e 300 w om en i n t he pool , m ul t i pl i ed by10% , one w oul d expec t30 w om en i n t he p o o l to b e in e lig ib le) . F in a lly , D r. G rif f in c o m p a re d th e “ e x p e c ted ” n u m b e r o f in e lig ib le w o m en w ith the a ctua l nu m b er o f in eli g ible w o m en in the p o o l, to as sess w h ethe r th ere w as a s hor t fal l ora s urpl us of i nel i gi bl e w om en i n thatpart i cul arpool , r el at i ve t o w hat w a s e x p e c ted (i.e., if 2 0 w o m e n w e re a c tu a llyin e lig ib le, th e n th e re w o u ld b e a sh o rtf a ll of 10 w om en— 10 few erw om en w er e i nel i gi bl e than w oul d be expe ct ed gi ven the Feede r P o o l’ s p a rt ic u la r i n e lig ib ility ra te a s a w h o le ). H avi ng conduct ed thi s anal y s i s forappr oxi m at el y600 “j ob fi l l s , ” D r . G r i ffi n then s um m ed the s urpl us es and s hor t fal l s of i nel i gi bl e w om en ac r os s thos e appr oxi m at el y600 “j ob fi l l s . ” Thi s r es ul t ed i n a nets urpl us of 6. 2 i nel i gi bl e w om en, m eani ng that6. 2 few er w o m e n w e re p ro m o tio n e lig ib le th a n w o u ld h a v e b e e n if th e re w e re p e rf

e c t g e n d e r p a rity a c ro ss a ll 6 0 0 jo b f

ill s. A s th e D istric t C o u rt n o ted , “[ s]ix f e w e r p ro m o tio n e lig ib le fem al es acr oss 600 plus ‘ j ob fi l l s’ i s n o t s t at i s t i cal l ys i gni fi cantbyanym eas ur e, and does nots uppor tan i nfer ence of di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id . at *8 (em p h asis in o ri g inal).21

Atth i s p o i n t , th e Di s tr i c tCo u r tn o t e d th a t“ th e p a r t i e s h a v e me r e l yp r e s e n t e d t wo d if f e re n t sta tistica l m o d e ls th a t p ro d u c e o p p o site re su lts,” a n d th a t “[ s]im p ly d e m o n stra tin g th a t an a ltern a tiv e a n a ly sis lea d s to a ltern a tiv e re su lts is n o t su f f icie n t to defe ata pl ai nt i ff’ s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e— the def endantm us tal s o s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tthatpl ai nt i ffs ’ m odel i s fundament al l yfl aw ed forthe purpos e of de m ons tr at i ng di s par at e i m pacti n the ca s e ati s s ue. ” Id . (c ita tio n o m itte d ). T h e D istric t C o u rt c o n tin u e d :

T h e k e yd if

f e re n c e b e tw e e n th e e x p e rts c a n b e b o iled d o w n to thi s : D r . G r i ffi n l ooks atw hetherw om en appl y i ng t o j ob X ar e di s advant aged r el at i ve t o m en appl y i ng t o j ob X , w her eas D r . K i l l i ngs w or th anal y zes w hetherw om en appl y i ng t o j obs X and Y ar e di s advant aged r el at i ve t o m en appl y i ng forj obs X and Y , combi ned. W hen s een i n thos e t erm s , the di ffe r ence b e tw e e n th e e x p e r ta n a l ys i s p r e s e n t e d i n th i s c a s e i s s i m p l y a ques t i on of w hetherthe pl ai nt i ffs have a nal y zed the a p p ro p ri a te re le v a n t la b o r p o o l f o r p u rp o s e s o f

c o m p a ri s o n . T h is q u e s tio n c a n b e d e c id e d a s a m a tte r o f la w . Id . at *9 . E ssen ti all y , the D istri ct C o u rtsaw it self a s fo rce d to d ec ide w h ethe r D r. K i l l i ngs w or th’ s deci s i on t o aggr egat e the 716 Feede rPool s i nt o one A ggr egat e Pool w as a p p ro p ri a te , a n d c o n s id e re d th is to b e a q u e s tio n o f la w . T h e D istric t C o u rt n o ted th a t “[ a ]g g re g a ted sta tistica l d a ta m a yb e p ro p e rlyu se d to pr ove di s par at e i m pactw her e i ti s m or e pr obat i ve than s ubdi vi ded dat a, ” id . ( ci t i ng P aige v . C a lif o rn ia , 291 F. 3d 1141, 1148 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ) , butthat“‘ [w ] hen s peci al qual i fi cat i ons ar e r equi r ed t o fi l l part i cul arj obs , compar i s ons t o the gene r al popul at i on (r at her than t o the sm al l er gr ou p o f i nd i vidual s w ho po sses s the n ecessaryqu al i fi cat i on s)22

m ayhave l i t t l e pr obat i ve val ue. ’ ” Id . ( quot i ng H az elw ood Sch. D is t . v. U. S. , 43 3 U. S. 2 9 9 , 3 0 8 n . 1 3 (1 9 7 7 )). T h e D istric t C o u rt th e n sta ted th a t D r. K ill in g sw o rth acknow l edged thateveryuni on empl oy ee w as notfungi bl e forpurpos es of pr om ot i on, sin c e h e c re a ted th e 7 1 6 F e e d e r P o o ls, “ o th e rw ise h e w o u ld h a v e sim p lyc o m p a re d a ll uni on empl oy ees acr os s the boar d. ” Id . T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n tend ed that b ec au se D r. K i l l i ngs w or th t akes the “di s t i nct i ons betw een j ob cat egor i es [t o be] i m por t ant. . . then the d e f e n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e se d istin c tio n s s h o u ld b e m a in tain e d th ro u g h o u t th e a n a ly sis r i ngs true. ” Id . A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t “b e c a u se p lain tiff s’ a n a ly sis is focus ed on an ove rbr oad and i ncompar abl e pool of empl oy ees , i tl acks the s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e nec es s aryt o m ake outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Id . a t * 1 1 . In th e a lt ern ati v e, th e D istri ct C o u rtfo u n d that “[ e]v en if D r. K il li n g sw o rth ’s m ethodol ogyw as s ound and hi s r es ul t s r ecogni zed a s havi ng ‘ s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e, ’ t he r es ul t s of hi s anal y s i s ar e underm i ned bya l ack of pr act i cal s i gni fi canc e. ” Id . a t* 1 2 . To re a c h th is c o n c lu sio n , the D istric t C o u rt c re d ited D r. G rif f in ’s c a lcu latio n th a t if f e m a le c a n d id a tes in th e A g g re g a ted P o o l h a d th e sa m e e lig ib ili tyra te a s m a le c a n d id a tes , this w o u ld h a v e tra n sla ted to a “ g e n d e r g a p ” o f o n ly7 2 6 a d d iti o n a l f

e m a le p ro m o tio n -e lig ib le candi daci es ( notnece s s ar i l yequal t o the numberof af fec t ed i ndi vi dual peopl e or candi dat es ) over al l . T he D i s tr i ctC our tal s o not ed that , underthe EE O C G ui del i nes ’ “80 p e rc e n t ru le ,” th e a d v e rs e im p a c t r a tio ’s “ p ra c tic a l s ig n if ic a n c e is o f

lim ite d m a g n itu d e ,” s in c e th e ra tio h e re w a s 9 6 .8 p e rc e n t— w e ll o v e r t h e 8 0 p e rc e n t b a s e lin e . Id .23

I n concl us i on, the D i s tr i ctC our tfound that“the appl i cantpool pl ai nt i ffs anal y zed t o demonstr at e the di s par at e i m pactof A m tr ak’ s pol i cyerr oneous l ycompar es empl oy ees w ho m aynothave the mi ni m al qual i fi cat i ons forthe part i cul arj obs ati s s ue, ” and that “pl ai nt i ffs ’ evi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on l acks pr act i cal s i gni fi canc e. ” Id . at*13. T he C o u rt th e re f

o re g ra n te d A m tr a k ’s m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I V. W e re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo . See, e. g. , S la g le v. C ount y of C lar i on , 435 F. 3d 262, 263 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . U nderR ul e 56( c) of the Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, s um m aryj udgm enti s appr opr i at e w hen “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac t . ” The m ovi ng party“bea r s the i ni t i al r es pons i bi l i tyof i nform i ng the di s tr i ctcourtof the bas i s fori t s m ot i on, and i dent i fy i ng thos e port 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 admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogether w i th the af

fi davi t s , i f any , w hi ch i tbel i eves demonstr at e the abs ence of a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac t . ” El , 479 F. 3d at237 ( quot i ng C e lo tex C o rp . v. C a tre tt , 477 U . S. 317, 323 (1 9 8 6 )) . T h e c o u rt m u s t d ra w a ll r e a s o n a b le in f e re n c e s a g a in s t th e m o v in g p a rt y . Id . at 2 3 8 . “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 ec ide th e c ase o n the law sh o rto f tri al, the n o n -m o v ing p artyca n d ef ea t sum m ary j ud gm ent i f i tno nethel ess pr od uces or po i nts t o ev i den ce i n the r ecord t hat cr eat es a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . ” Id . “T h u s, if th e re is a c h a n c e th a t a r e a so n a b le fac t fi nderw oul d notacc epta movi ng party ’ s nece s s arypr opos i t i ons of fa ct , pr e- tr i al24

j udgm entcannotbe gr ant ed. ” Id . W e fi nd thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hetherthe one- y ear rul e caused a dis parat e i m pact on fem al e em ploy ees. A ccordi ng l y , al tho ug h iti s a cl ose cas e, w e fi nd thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d nothave gr ant ed A m tr ak’ s m ot i on for s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t b a s e d o n th is re c o rd . A s n o ted a b o v e, t o estab li sh a p ri m a f ac ie ca se o f d ispa rate im p ac t i n a T it le V II cas e, a pl ai nt i ff must( 1) i dent i fya s peci fi c empl oym entpol i cyorpr act i ce of the empl oy erand ( 2) pr offe revi dence , typi cal l ys t at i s t i cal evi dence , ( 3) of a ki nd and degr ee s uffi ci entt o s how thatthe pr act i ce i n ques t i on has caus ed exc l us i on of appl i cant s forj obs o r p ro m o tio n s (4 ) b e c a u s e o f th e irm e m b e rs h ip in a p ro te c te d g ro u p . T o e s ta b lis h (3 ), a pl ai nt i ff w i l l typi cal l yhave t o demonstr at e thatthe di s par i tyi n i m pacti s s uffi ci ent l yl ar ge thati ti s hi ghl yunl i kel yt o have oc curr ed atr andom, and t o do s o byus i ng one of s ever al t es t s of s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e. A pl ai nt i ff ne ed notdemonstr at e thatthe di s par at e i m pact ra tio sa tisf

ies th e E E O C ’s 8 0 p e rc e n t ru le ( th e f ig u re a t w h ich o r b e lo w th e E E O C w ill p resu m e the ex ist en ce o f d ispa rate im p ac t) . A s n o ted a b o v e, th e E E O C G u idelines are notent i t l ed t o gr eatdefe r ence , butt o Skidm ore defe r ence , underw hi ch EE O C G ui del i nes “get [] defe r ence i n acc or dance w i th the thor oughnes s of [thei r ] r es ear ch and the per s uas i venes s of [thei r ] r eas oni ng. ” El , 479 F. 3d at244 ( ci t i ng EE O Cv. A r ab A m er i can O i lC o. , 499 U . S. at257) . T he 80 per centrul e has come unders i gni fi cantcr i t i ci s m and w e do notfi nd the r eas oni ng thatm i ghts uppor ti t s appl i cat i on her e per s uas i ve i n l i ghtofE v e n A m tra k c o n c e d e s th a t th e re su lts, if th e ysta n d , m e e t th e th re sh o ld 10 re q u ir e m e n t f

o r s ta tis tic a l s ig n if

ic a n c e . O ra l A rg . T r., 4 7 -4 8 .

25 th e s ta tis tic a l s ig n if

ic a n c e o f D r. K illin g s w o rt h ’s re s u lts . Si m i l ar l y , thi s C our thas neveres t abl i s hed “pr act i cal s i gni fi canc e” a s an i n d e p e n d e n tr e q u i r e me n tf o ra p l a i n t i f

f ’ s p r i ma f

a c i e d i s p a r a t e i mp a c tc a s e , a n d we d e c lin e to d o so h e re . T h e E E O C G u id e lin e s th e m se lv e s d o n o t se t o u t “p ra c tica l” s i gni fi canc e as an i ndepende ntr equi r ement , and w e fi nd thati n a ca s e i n w hi ch the s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e of s om e s etof r es ul t s i s cl ear , ther e i s no need t o pr obe for add i t i on al “pract i cal ” si gn i fi cance . S t at i st i cal si gn i fi cance i s r el evan tbecau se i tal l ow s a fac t - fi ndert o be conf

i dentthatthe r el at i ons hi p betw een s om e rul e orpol i cyand s om e s et o f d ispa rate im p ac t r esu lt s w as n o t th e p rod u ct of ch an ce . T h is go es to the p lai n ti ff ’s bur den of i ntr oduci ng s t at i s t i cal evi dence thati s “s uffi ci ent l ys ubs t ant i al ” t o r ai s e “a n i nfer ence of ca us at i on. ” W at s on , 487 U . S. at994- 95. T her e i s no addi t i onal r equi r ement th a t th e d is p a ra te im p a c t c a u s e d b e a b o v e s o m e th re s h o ld le v e l o f p ra c tic a l s ig n if

ic a n c e . A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n rul i ng “i n the al t ernat i ve” thatthe abs ence of p ra c tic a l s ig n if

ic a n c e w a s f

a ta l to P la in tif

f s ’ c a s e . T her e i s no ques t i on thatD r . K i l l i ngs w or th’ s r es ul t s , i f the pr oductof a r el evant and otherw i s e compel l i ng s t at i s t i cal anal y s i s , ar e s t at i s t i cal l ys i gni fi cantabove the thr es hol d thatcourt s have r equi r ed. A s not ed above , w hen D r . K i l l i ngs w or th anal y zed 10 the dat a us i ng a corr ect ed pr obi tanal y s i s , the r es ul t s y i el ded a s t andar d devi at i on of26

3 .8 5 5 , w ith a p -v a lu e o f les s th a n 0 .0 0 1

— m e a n in g th e re su lts a re in c re d ib lyu n lik e lyto h a v e o c c u rre d a s a re su lt o f c h a n c e a lo n e . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s s u g g e ste d th a t a sta n d a rd d e v iatio n b e tw e e n 2 a n d 3 w o u ld b e su f f icie n t, an d D r. K ill in g sw o rth ’s r e su lts a re c o n s id e ra b ly ab o v e th a t. See, e. g. , C as taneda , 4 3 0 U .S . a t 4 9 6 n .1 7 . T h u s, the o n lyissue is w h ethe r th e D istri ct C o u rtw as c o rrect i n fin d ing that D r. K i l l i ng sw orth’s s t at i st i cal analy si s w as, i n eff ect , l egall yi rr el evan tt o sat i sfy i ng P l ai nti ffs’ b u rd e n w ith re sp e c t to th e ir p rim a f a c ie c a se b e c a u se h is a n a ly sis u se d a g g re g a tio n , an d in p arti cu lar th e A g g reg ated P o o l, in co n d u cti n g h is st ati sti ca l ana ly sis. W e f ind that D r. K i l l i ngs w or th’ s deci s i on t o aggr egat e the dat a, al though notobvi ous l ycorr ect , i s al s o not obvi ous l yi ncorr ect , and s o t her e r emai ns a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t

— w hetherthe o n e -ye a r r u le c a u s e d a d is p a ra te im p a c t o n A m tr a k ’s f e m a le e m p lo y e e s . T he one- y earrul e appl i es t o al l uni on empl oy ees . H ow ever , i ncl udi ng al l uni on empl oy ees i n t he s t at i s t i cal s ampl e w oul d have be en i nappr opr i at e, s i nce manyof them m ayn o t hav e b ee n ev en rem o te ca n d idates f o r any m a n a g e m e n t p o sitio n . T o id e n tifya ll tho se u n ion em p loy ee s w h o m igh t r ea so n ab lyb e tho u g h t t o b e c an d idates f o r a m anage m entpos i t i on, D r . K i l l i ngs w or th i dent i fi ed thos e ca ndi dat es w ho obt ai ned a m anage m entpos i t i on dur i ng the r el evantfi ve- y ears pan, and then i dent i fi ed the pr evi ous uni on pos i t i ons hel d bythos e ca ndi dat es . A tthatpoi nt , D r . K i l l i ngs w or th as s um ed, and th e D istric t C o u rt f

o u n d th is a ss u m p tio n re a so n a b le, th a t all th o se in d iv id u a ls w h o w e re in th e sa m e u n io n p o sitio n a s th e p o sitio n th a t th e su c c e ss f u l ca n d id a te h a d p re v io u sly27

occupi ed mi ghtr eas onabl ybe thoughtt o have be en a pos s i bl e ca ndi dat e forthe m anage m entpos i t i on thatthe s ucce s s ful candi dat e ac tual l yobt ai ned. T hus , i f Sm i th w as hi r ed i nt o M anage m entPosi t i on O ne, and Sm i th had pr evi ous l ybeen i n U ni on Posi t i on O ne, D r . K i l l i ngs w or th as s um ed thatal l otheri ndi vi dual s — J ones , W i l l i ams, J ohns on, et c. — w ho had bee n i n U ni on Posi t i on O ne w er e pos s i bl e ca ndi dat es forM anage m ent P o sitio n O n e . T h is is n o t a p e rf e c t p ro x y , as a ll p a rties c o n c e d e . F o r e x a m p le, S m ith m i ghthave ha d m uch more exper i ence than J ones and W i l l i ams, orhe mi ghthave educa t i onal degr ees thattheyl ack. B ut , gi ven thatthe one- y earrul e oper at es as an i ni t i al b a r f ro m e v e n b e c o m in g a c a n d id a te f o r a jo b , the o n lyw a yto m e a su re its e f f e c t is to devi s e s om e w ayof i dent i fy i ng thos e w ho m i ghtr eas onabl ybe thoughtt o have be en pos s i bl e ca ndi dat es w er e i tnotforthe exi s t ence of the one- y earrul e. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatD r . K i l l i ngs w or th’ s m ethod her e w as r eas onabl e. I ti s true thatw hi l e “the popul at i on s el ect ed fors t at i s t i cal anal y s i s need not per fec t l ym at ch the pool of qual i fi ed per s ons , ” w i thout“a c l os e fi tbetw een the popul at i on us ed t o m eas ur e di s par at e i m pactand the popul at i on of thos e qual i fi ed fora bene fi t , t he s t at i s t i cal r es ul t s cannotbe per s uas i ve. ” C ar pent erv. B oei ng C o. , 456 F. 3d 1183, 1196 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . O ne musthave the pr operpool of peopl e i n vi ew befor e per form i ng s t at i s t i cal anal y s i s , orthatanal y s i s w i l l be i rr el evant . T hi s , how ever , goes t o the i s s ue of w h ethe r D r. K il li n g sw o rth ’s us e o f th e ind ividu al F ee d er P o o ls w as re aso n ab le or n o t. In d isc u ss in g th is iss u e , the D istric t C o u rt sta ted :28 I n t he abs ence of expl i ci tm eas ur es of qual i fi cat i ons and j ob i nt er es t , D r . K i l l i ngs w or th as s um ed thati nform at i on aboutthe pos i t i on hel d pr i ort o pr om ot i on coul d r eas onabl ys erve as an i ndi cat orof qual i fi cat i ons and j ob i nt er es t . B as ed on the i nform at i on pr ovi ded t o D r . K i l l i ngs w or th byA m tr ak, p la in tif f s ’ m e th o d is a re a s o n a b le o n e . S tag i I I, 2 0 0 9 W L 2 4 6 1 8 9 2 , a t * 6 . W e a g re e . W her e the D i s tr i ctC our ti dent i fi ed a pr obl em w as w i th the combi ni ng of the i nd i vidual F eeder P oo l s i nto one A gg regat ed P oo l . T he D i stri ctC ou rtst at ed thatbecau se D r. K ill in g sw o rth tak e s th e “ d istin c tio n s b e tw e e n jo b c a teg o rie s [ to b e ] im p o rta n t” in creat i ng the indi vidual F eeder P oo l s, “t hen the d efen dan t ’s argum ent that these di s t i nct i ons s houl d be mai nt ai ned thr oughoutthe ana l y s i s r i ngs true. ” Id . at *9 . A m tr ak ’s c o u n se l m a d e th is s a m e p o in t re p e a ted lya t o ra l ar g u m e n t, statin g th a t “if y o u ’re g o in g to l i ve in a strat i fi ed w orl d, y ou hav e t o fo l l ow that s trat i fi ed w orl d thr ou gh t o y ou r anal y si s” and that“the pr obl em i s thatw e’ r e aggr egat i ng aft erw e s tr at i fy , that ’ s the hea r tof the m a tte r.” O ra l A rg . T r., a t 4 1 , 4 5 . H ow ever , nei therthe D i s tr i ctC our tnorA m tr ak’ s couns el has offe r ed a c onvi nci ng ex p lana ti o n o f w h ythe u se o f a g g reg ated d ata in this ca se is im p rop er. T h e D istri ct C o u rt reintrod u ce s the “q u ali fica ti o n s” issu e, asse rt ing that “[ t] h e sin g le ag g reg ated stat ist ic D r. K i l l i ngs w or th r el i es on compar es i ndi vi dual s w ho m ayneveractual l ybe i n compet i t i on forthe s ame j obs , and does notacc ur at el yacc ountforw hatj ob the empl oy ee i n ques t i on i s comi ng fr om , w her e theyar e l ooki ng t o go, and w hatthe r el evantqual i fi cat i ons ar e. ” S tag i I I, 2009 W L 2461892, at*9. B utthi s cr i t i ci s m m i s s es i t s t ar get . C r eat i ng the29

A g g re g a ted P o o l o u t o f th e in d iv id u a l F e e d e r P o o ls d o e s n o t er ro n e o u slyim p lyth a t a p e rso n f ro m F e e d e r P o o l A (c re a ted b a se d o n M a n a g e m e n t P o sitio n A ) is a p o ss ib le c a n d id a te , a lo n g w ith th e m e m b e rs o f F e e d e r P o o l B , f

o r M a n a g e m e n t P o s itio n B . R a th e r, itju st p u ts to g e th e r a ll o f th o se p e o p le ( o r c a n d id a c ies , m o re p re c ise ly ) w h o a re in uni on pos i t i ons curr ent l y , and w ho ar e r eas onabl ythoughtof as pos s i bl e ca ndi dat es for s om e m anagem ent

pos i t i on orother . A l l of thes e peopl e ar e s us cept i bl e t o the one- y ear rul e, and thus al l of them ar e pot ent i al l y“bl ocked” byi t s uni form appl i cat i on i f theyhave s erved l es s than one y eari n t hei rr es pect i ve uni on pos i t i ons . A ggr egat i ng the i ndi vi dual FeederPool s i n t hi s w ayappea r s t o be no more pr obl emat i c, atl eas tw i th r es pectt o the i s s ue of qua l i fi cat i ons , than doi ng w hatD r . G r i ffi n di d w hen he s i m pl y“adde d up” the di ffe r ence betw een the expe ct ed i nel i gi bi l i tyr at e and the ac tual i nel i gi bi l i tyr at e foreac h o f th e 6 0 0 p lu s in d iv id u a l F e e d e r P o o ls . A t v a rio u s p o in ts, A m tra k ’s c o u n se l at o ra l ar g u m e n t ap p e a re d to b e a rg u in g th a t, as a mat t erof cons is t ency , once one has s ubdi vi ded the pool i nt o cat egor i es , one ought n o t to re c o m b in e th o se c a teg o rie s in to a n a g g re g a te p o o l. T h e D istric t C o u rt a p p e a re d to acc epta s i m i l arl i ne of thoughtw hen i tnot ed thatbeca us e D r . K i l l i ngs w or th t ook the “di s t i nct i ons betw een j ob cat egor i es [t o be] i m por t ant ” i n cr eat i ng the i ndi vi dual Feeder Pool s , “then the def

endant ’ s ar gum entthatthes e di s t i nct i ons s houl d be mai nt ai ned thr oughoutthe ana l y s i s r i ngs true. ” Id . at*9. B utther e has been no a r gum entm ade that so m e h o w th e sta tistica l an a ly sis is c o rru p ted if o n e “ c h a n g e s h o rse s” f ro m a stra tifie d to30

an aggr egat ed ana l y s i s m i ds tr eam. I ndeed, A m tr ak’ s couns el expl i ci t l ys t at ed that“the actual m anneri n w hi ch [D r . K i l l i ngs w or th] per form s the number s i s noti ncorr ect , i t ’ s t he un derl y i ng nu m bers that ar e t he p robl em . ” O ral A rg. T r. , at44 . F i nall y , P l ai nti ffs’ couns el s tr es s es thattheyneverw er e doi ng a “s tr at i fi cat i on” ana l y s i s i n the fi r s tpl ace , but thattheyw er e s i m pl yatt empt i ng t o “def i ne w hati s the s ubs etof t ot al uni on empl oy ees w ho s eemed t o be i n pos i t i ons thatm ade them el i gi bl e t o s eek pr om ot i on. ” Id . a t 5 6 . A fi nal pos s i bl e r eas on t o obj ectt o the us e of a ggr egat ed dat a i s pr es ent ed byt he D i s tr i ctC our tw hen i tnot es thatD r . G r i ffi n’ s r eports ugges t s thatther e ar e s om e Feede r Pool s i n w hi ch fe w erw om en than men w er e made i nel i gi bl e bythe one- y earrul e, and som e i n w hich the reverse w as true, and that the o veral l res ultof w om en d oing w orse than men ( atl eas tunderD r . K i l l i ngs w or th’ s m odel ) obs cur es thes e fa ct s . T hi s w oul d be a r eas on agai ns taggr egat i ng i ns ofaras aggr egat i ng pr oduces a mi s l eadi ng pi ctur e of the over al l s i tuat i on forw om en. ( A s one courthas not ed, “[i ] f M i cr os oft - founderB i l l G at es a n d n in e m o n k s a re to g e th e r in a ro o m , itis a c c u ra te to sa yth a t o n a v e ra g e th e p e o p le in the r oom ar e extr em el

y w el l - t o- do, butthi s ki nd of aggr egat e ana l y s i s obs cur es the fa ct thatni netyper centof the peopl e i n the r oom have t aken a vow of poverty . ” A br am v. U ni t ed Parce lSer v. I

nc. , 200 F. R . D . 424, 431 ( E . D . W i s . 2001) . ) Forexampl e, i tm i ght b e th a t in 4 0 0 o f

th e 7 1 6 F e e d e r P o o ls, w o m e n a re m a d e in e lig ib le a t a r a te s ig n if ica n tly gr eat erthan thatof m en, and thati n 316 of the Feede rPool s , the r ever s e i s true. I n s uch a s i tuat i on, the one- y earrul e appe ar s t o have a di s par at e i m pacton w om en onl yi n a s ubs et31

o f th e 7 1 6 F e e d e r P o o ls . Pl ai nt i ffs ’ s econd e xpert , R amona Paet zol d, s ubm i t t ed an a ffi davi tar gui ng that str ati fica ti o n is i n ap p rop ri ate in this ca se p rec isel yb ec au se o f th is po ssibil ity . In part i cul ar , s tr at i fi cat i on i s i nappr opr i at e bec aus e the number s of w om en i n eac h fee der jo b a t an yg iv e n p o in t in tim e is d e ter m in e d , in p a rt, b yth e e x iste n c e o f th e o n e -y e a r ru le i t sel f, “beca use t he o ne-y ear rule atl eastpart i al l yaffects ho w l on g m en an d w om en m ust r emai n i n the fe ederj ob befor e bei ng el i gi bl e forpr om ot i on. ” Paet zol d A ff. 3. T he D i s tr i ctC our tcont ends thatthi s i s a pr obl em for Pl ai nt i ffs , beca us e “the gende r composi t i on of fe ederj obs m ayveryw el l be af fec t ed byaddi t i onal fac t or s s uch as w age lev e ls, w o rk in g c o n d iti o n s, m o v e m e n t p ro sp e c ts, lay o f f s, a n d th e u n io n ’s c o llec tib le bar gai ni ng agr eementthatal l ow s unr es tr i ct ed l at er al j ob m ovement s among uni on empl oy ees , none of w hi ch the pl ai nt i ffs have made anyatt empt t o i dent i fyorcontr ol for i n thei ranal y s i s . ” S tag i I I, 2009 W L 2461892, at*10. B utthi s s eems t o be a pr obl em o n lyif th e re a so n s a g a in st a g g re g a tio n a re c o m p e lli n g . T h e re is n o leg a l re q u ire m e n t to u se th e sm a lles t p o ss ib le u n it o f a n a ly sis . If

th e re a re a d d iti o n a l f

a c to rs ( su c h a s s e n io rity rul es )

— apartfr om j us tthe one- y earrul e— thatar e det erm i ni ng the composi t i on of the i ndi vi dual FeederPool s i n a “ge nder ed” w ay , thes e fa ct or s m ayai d A m tr ak i n m ount i ng a bus i nes s j us t i fi cat i on defe ns e, buti ti s i nappr opr i at e t o r equi r e Pl ai nt i ffs t o contr ol for e v e ry p o s s ib le s u c h f

a c to r i n o rd e r t o s u s ta in th e irb u rd e n o f p ro v in g a p ri m a f

a c ie c a s e . I f the aggr egat ed dat a y i el ds a s t at i s t i cal l ys i gni fi cantfi ndi ng, s uch as the one he r e, that32

the one- y earrul e i s havi ng a di s par at e i m pacton w om en, and ther e i s no compel l i ng re a so n to a v o id u se o f

a g g re g a ted d a ta, th a t is e n o u g h f o r P lain tiff

s to e sta b lish th e ir p ri m a f a c ie c a s e . A ddi t i onal l y , ther e maybe good r eas ons t o aggr egat e dat a i n a ca s e s uch as thi s — r eas ons thathave nothi ng t o do w i th s i m pl ypi cki ng and choos i ng the model w hi ch w i l l gener at e the mostfavor abl e r es ul t s forpl ai nt i ffs ’ cas e. Perhaps m os ts i gni fi cant l y , as the Four th C i r cui thas obs erved, “byi ncr eas i ng the abs ol ut e number s i n the dat a, chanc e w i l l m or e r eadi l ybe exc l uded as a ca us e of a nydi s par i t i es found. ” Li l l y v. H ar r is - Teet er Super m arket , 720 F. 2d 326, 336 n. 17 ( 4th C i r . 1983) . T hi s m akes i ntui t i ve s ens e. “For e x a m p le, if

a c o in w e re to ss e d ten tim e s . . . a n d c a m e u p h e a d s f o u r tim e s, n o o n e w o u ld think the c o in w as b iased (0.63 2 stan d ard d ev iat ion s), b u t i f th is sam e ra ti o o cc u rred fo r a to tal o f 1 0 ,0 0 0 to ss e s, o f

w h ich 4 ,0 0 0 w e re h e a d s, th e re su lt co u ld n o t b e a ttribu ted to chanc e ( 20 s t andar d devi at i ons ) . ” Id . H er e, bycombi ni ng al l of thos e ca ndi daci es i n the 71 6 F eeder P oo l s i nto one A gg regat ed P oo l , D r. K i l l i ng sw orth w as bet t er abl e t o tes t w hetherthe di ffe r ence i n t he i nel i gi bi l i tyr at e form en and w om en w as m er el ythe pr oduct o f c h a n c e . M a n yc o u rt s h a v e f o u n d s u c h a re a s o n f

o r a g g re g a tin g c o m p e llin g . See, e. g. , E ldr edge v . C ar

pent ers 46 N

. C al i f or ni a C ount i es Joi ntAppr ent i ces hi p and Trai ni ng Co mm. , 8 3 3 F .2 d 1 3 3 4 , 1 3 3 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (“ A g g re g a ted d a ta p re se n ts a m o re c o m p lete a n d re liab le p ictu re .”); C o o k v . B o o rs tin , 763 F. 2d 1462, 1468- 69 ( D . C . C i r . 1985) (rejecti n g d ef

en d an t’ s arg u m en t t o restri ct st ati sti ca l ana ly sis t o p arti cu lar j o b ca tego ri es);33

C a p a c i v. Ka tz & B e sth o

ff , 7 1 1 F .2 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 4 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 ) (a llo w in g a p lan to a g g re g a te d a ta o v e r se v e ra l y e a rs b e c a u se a g g re g a tio n w a s n e c e ss a ryin o rd e r to a c c o m p lis h a m e a n in g f

u l s ta tis tic a l a n a lysis ). A ta mi ni m um , w e fi nd thatther e i s a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac tas t o w hether the o n e-y ea r rule ca u sed a d ispa rate im p ac t on fe m ale e m p loy ee s. Itis po ssible tha t th ere a r e r e a s o n s t o p r e f

e rD r . G r i f

f i n ’ s m e th o d o l o g y t o D r . K i l l i n g s w o r th ’ s m e th o d o l o g y, gi ven thattheyy i el d confl i ct i ng concl us i ons r egar di ng w hetherthe one- y earrul e has an a ll-thin g s-c o n sid e re d d isp a ra te im p a c t o n w o m e n . B u t w e c a n n o t so c o n c lu d e o n th is r ecor d, and the r eas ons pr es ent ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our tforfi ndi ng thatPl ai nt i ffs have fai l ed t o m ake outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e do notw i ths t and s crut i ny . A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd t hat the D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d nothave gr ant ed A m tr ak’ s m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entbas ed o n th is re c o rd . V. W e w i l l r ever s e the j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant i ng A m tr ak’ s m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm entand w i l l r emand forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on.