Task: songer_respond2_3_3

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other, not listed, not able to classify". Your task is to determine which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant.

SWYGERT, Circuit Judge.
This case is a consolidated civil rights action broadly challenging the employment practices of the Chicago Police Department. The district court in its January 5, 1976 memorandum decision found that the method utilized by the Police Department in hiring and promoting police officers resulted in discrimination against blacks, Hispanics, and women in violation of federal civil rights statutes and the Constitution. On February 2, 1976 the court entered a final order which enjoined those employment practices found to be discriminatory, imposed numerical hiring and promotion quotas, and continued its injunction against payment of federal revenue sharing funds to the City of Chicago pending compliance with the court’s order. The defendants challenge both the court’s findings of discrimination and its choice of remedies.
I
We will briefly review the proceedings in the district court, which have been thoroughly detailed in previously reported decisions.
On September 9, 1970 Renault Robinson, a black Chicago police officer, and the Afro-American Patrolmen’s League filed a complaint against the Superintendent of Police, the City of Chicago, and the members of the Police Review Board charging racial discrimination in the assignment, promotion, and discipline of Chicago police officers. The Robinson plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages under the first, fifth, thirteenth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, and under the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1988.
A second action was brought on May 18, 1978 against the City, the Superintendent of Police, and the Chicago Civil Service Commission and its Secretary by Tadeo Robert Camacho and ten blacks and Hispanics who were unsuccessful applicants for positions as Chicago police officers. The Camacho plaintiffs challenged the full range of departmental practices with respect to recruiting, screening, and hiring. They sought relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985, the fourteenth amendment, and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which had been amended and made •applicable to municipalities in 1972), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d and e.
A third suit was filed August 14, 1973 by the United States against the City, the Superintendent of Police, and the Chicago Civil Service Commission alleging a pattern and practice of discrimination within the Chicago Police Department against blacks, Hispanics, and women in the hiring, assignment, promotion, and discipline of police personnel. The Government sought relief under Title VII, under sections 1981 and 1985, and under the anti-discrimination guidelines and regulations of the Department of Justice and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 28 C.F.R. §§ 42.-201 et seq. and 42.301 et seq. Upon plaintiffs’ joint motion, the three cases were consolidated in the district court before Judge Prentice H. Marshall.
An evidentiary hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction commenced on May 30, 1974. Plaintiffs sought to restrain further hiring by the City from the patrolman’s eligibility roster and further promotion to the rank of sergeant from the sergeant's eligibility roster. The patrolman’s eligibility roster was based on the results of the 1971 patrolman’s examination given by the Chicago Civil Service Commission and a series of physical and medical tests. The sergeant’s eligibility roster was based on the results of the 1978 sergeant’s examination given by the Commission, departmental efficiency ratings, and seniority. Plaintiffs claimed both examinations, as well as other criteria used by the Police Department in hiring and promotion, improperly discriminated against black and Hispanic candidates. In addition, the Government sought preliminary relief against the disparate treatment of women within the Department. Just prior to the hearing, Louis Arado and other police officers who held positions on the 1973 sergeant’s eligibility roster were permitted to intervene as defendants.
The preliminary injunction hearing consumed seventeen trial days. During the hearing, a consent decree was entered which resolved challenges to the Police Department’s physical and medical requirements. On November 7, 1974 the district court issued findings of discrimination in hiring and promotion and preliminarily enjoined the defendants from utilizing practices that discriminated against minorities and women. The court also specifically prohibited any further hiring or promotion from eligibility rosters based on the 1971 patrolman’s and the 1973 sergeant’s examinations. Relying on representations by the City that a new patrolman’s examination was being developed, the court declined to impose any preliminary hiring or promotion quotas.
A fourth action alleging employment discrimination in the Chicago Police Department was filed on February 7, 1974 in the district court for the District of Columbia against the Secretary of the Treasury and the Office of Revenue Sharing. In this action plaintiffs Robinson, the Afro-American Patrolmen’s League, and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People sought to enjoin further payment of revenue sharing funds earmarked for the City of Chicago under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, 31 U.S.C. §§ 1221 et seq. They alleged that a substantial portion of funds paid to the City of Chicago under the Act were being allocated to the Police Department, that the Police Department was engaged in discriminatory employment practices, and that payment of further funds to the City was consequently prohibited by the nondiscrimination provision of the Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1242. This suit was brought because the plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the response of the Secretary and the Office of Revenue Sharing to an administrative complaint filed in September 1973.
On May 29, 1974 the Secretary responded to the administrative complaint and recommended to the Attorney General, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 1242(b), that he bring a civil suit against the City. The Government accepted this recommendation on May 30, 1974 by amending its complaint in the Northern District of Illinois to allege violations of the Fiscal Assistance Act.
The District of Columbia district court then initially denied the requested injunctive relief on June 28, 1974, reasoning that' the Secretary had already fulfilled his statutory duty. Following entry of the preliminary injunction against the Chicago defendants in the proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois, however, the District of Columbia court reconsidered plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief. In reliance on Judge Marshall’s findings, the court on December 18, 1974 enjoined further payment of revenue sharing funds to the City until such time as the Secretary and the Office of Revenue Sharing determined that the Police Department was in compliance with the nondiscrimination provision of the Fiscal Assistance Act. Subsequently the City intervened in the District of Columbia proceedings and unsuccessfully sought modification of that court’s order. The action was then transferred at the City’s request from the District of Columbia to the Northern District of Illinois, where it was consolidated with the other cases pending against the City. In the following months, the district court twice denied motions by the City to modify the order forbidding payment of revenue sharing funds.
While the parties litigated the revenue sharing question, the original actions moved forward. After extensive negotiations, all interested parties consented to an interim hiring agreement that permitted the City to hire six hundred police officers from the 1971 patrolman’s and the 1972 police woman’s/matron’s lists in three groups of two hundred, with one hundred positions in each group to be filled by minority male candidates, thirty-three by women, and the remaining sixty-seven by white males. The court approved the agreement on December 16, 1974. The City then notified the first group of two hundred to report to the police training academy on January 6, 1975. However, on January 2 the City unilaterally suspended the interim hiring agreement and instructed the previously notified applicants not to report for training. On March 10, the opening day of the trial on the merits, the City announced, again unilaterally, a new examination for patrol officers and a program for the appointment of temporary sergeants not be selected from the 1973 sergeant’s list. Plaintiffs moved to enjoin the promotion of temporary sergeants, but this motion was denied on June 6. The court, however, did grant in part the motion of the Camacho plaintiffs to compel compliance with the interim hiring agreement. On April 21 it ordered the City to proceed with the suspended hiring of the two hundred applicants previously notified. It declined, however, to enforce the remainder of the agreement because of the City’s assurance that results of the new patrolman’s examination soon would be forthcoming.
The trial on the merits in the four consolidated cases began on March 10, 1975. Pri- or to trial the court allowed the intervention as plaintiffs of Carolyn Burauer and other named individuals who aspired to become police officers and who charged that they had been the victims of discrimination because they were women. It also permitted Roy Isakson and others who held positions on the 1971 patrolman’s eligibility roster to intervene as defendants. All parties agreed that evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction would be considered as part of the trial on the merits pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2).
On January 5, 1976 the district court entered a memorandum decision reaffirming in most respects the preliminary findings of discrimination in hiring and promotion made in its November 1974 decision. It found no discrimination, however, in the Police Department’s procedures governing promotion to the rank of lieutenant and found no racial discrimination in the Department’s assignment of personnel. It deferred final decision on the allegations of discrimination in discipline and on the personal claims of the Robinson plaintiffs.
In its implementing order of February 2, the district court made permanent the principal aspects of the preliminary injunction. To fill immediate vacancies in patrol officer ranks, it ordered the hiring of four hundred patrol officers pursuant to the uncompleted portion of the interim hiring agreement and authorized further hiring from the 1971 patrolman’s list and the 1972 policewoman’s/matron’s list in accordance with the racial and sexual percentages specified in that agreement. The court also permitted the appointments of temporary sergeants to be made permanent.
In addition, the court imposed racial and sexual quotas on future hiring and promotion as a long term goal to remedy the past effects of discrimination. It required that at least sixteen percent of new patrol officer vacancies be filled by women and that at least forty-two percent of those vacancies be filled by black and Spanish-surnamed men. The City was permitted, though not required, to utilize persons remaining on the 1971 and 1972 rosters in filling vacancies after these quotas were satisfied.
The court further ordered that forty percent of the officers promoted to sergeant be black or Spanish-surnamed. The City was allowed at its option to use the 1973 roster in determining who would be promoted after this guideline was met.-
Finally, the court continued the withholding of federal revenue sharing funds until the City brought itself into compliance with the nondiscrimination provision of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act. It ordered the parties to submit proposed timetables for the release of those funds subject to action by the City to cease its discriminatory conduct and comply with the court’s order.
II
As a preliminary matter, the defendants contend that the Robinson complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Robinson complaint alleged general federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for violations of the first, fifth, and fourteenth amendments and civil rights jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) for violations of the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. The district court concluded that no action lay for violation of section 1983 against the City or the Police Review Board since municipal corporations are not “persons” subject to suit under that provision. City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 93 S.Ct. 2222, 37 L.Ed.2d 109 (1973); Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). The court held, however, that jurisdiction was proper both under section 1331 and under section 1981 through its jurisdictional counterpart, section 1343(3). Robinson v. Conlisk, 385 F.Supp. 529 (N.D. 1ll.1974). We agree with these conclusions.
The availability of general federal question jurisdiction under section 1331 as an alternative to civil rights jurisdiction under section 1343 for a plaintiff alleging constitutional deprivations against a municipal corporation has been recognized by the Supreme Court and by this court. City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. at 514, 93 S.Ct. 2222; Calvin v. Conlisk, 520 F.2d 1, 8 (7th Cir. 1975), vacated on other grounds, 424 U.S. 902, 96 S.Ct. 1093, 47 L.Ed.2d 307 (1976). Section 1331, however, unlike section 1343, requires the plaintiff to meet a $10,000 amount in controversy requirement. The general principle governing dismissal for want of jurisdictional amount is that, unless the law gives a different rule, the sum claimed in good faith by the plaintiff at the time of filing controls. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288, 58 S.Ct. 586, 82 L.Ed. 845 (1937); Calvin v. Conlisk, 520 F.2d at 9. The district court concluded that Robinson satisfied this test by alleging in good faith that he had lost $30,000 in pay because of the defendants’ discriminatory acts. The court also found that the requirement was met by the good faith allegations of the Afro-American Patrolmen’s League that it had suffered damages of $100,000 because defendants’ discriminatory acts discouraged membership in and support for the League.
The City contends, however, that because the plaintiffs asked for damages only from the Superintendent of Police and merely requested injunctive and declaratory relief against the City and the Police Review Board, section 1331 jurisdiction is improper with respect to the City and the Board. We reject this argument. In a suit seeking injunctive relief, the amount in controversy is the value of the right to be protected or the extent of the injury to be prevented. 1 Moore’s Federal Practice H 0.96[3.-l] at 939. The Robinson plaintiffs have alleged that discriminatory practices by the City will, unless enjoined, cause them future damages well in excess of $10,-000. This is enough to satisfy the statute.
The district court alternatively found that subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the claims made against the City and the Board could be grounded on section 1981 through section 1343(3), its jurisdictional counterpart, which has no amount in controversy requirement. We agree. As the court noted, the language, purpose, and legislative history of section 1981 differ substantially from those of section 1983. Unlike section 1983, which requires action under color of state law, section 1981, intended to enforce the thirteenth amendment, prohibits all racial discrimination which deprives any person of the “full and equal benefit of all laws.” Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 170, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 2605, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 437-444, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1968). The exception from liability for municipalities that can be discerned from the legislative history of section 1983 is absent in the language or history of section 1981. Moreover, it would be anomalous to hold that section 1981 proscribes racial discrimination by purely private actors but not by municipalities. See Maybanks v. Ingraham, 378 F.Supp. 913, 917 (E.D.Pa.1974).
Ill
We turn now to the merits of this case. The district court held that the employment practices of the Police Department discriminated against racial minorities and women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the equal protection clause. We shall evaluate the court’s conclusions with respect to each of these sources of law proscribing discrimination.
In reviewing the court’s decision, we are bound under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) to accept findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Stewart v. General Motors Corp., 542 F.2d 445, 449 (7th Cir. 1976); Prince v. Packer Mfg. Co., 419 F.2d 34, 36 (7th Cir. 1969). The statement that discrimination exists for the purposes of establishing liability under Title VII or under the Constitution, however, is as much a conclusion of law as a finding of fact. A distinction must be drawn between subsidiary facts to which the “clearly erroneous” standard applies, and the ultimate fact of discrimination necessary to trigger a statutory or constitutional violation, which is the decisive issue to be determined in this litigation. See Stewart v. General Motors Corp., 542 F.2d at 449 (Title VII); East v. Romine, Inc., 518 F.2d 332, 338-39 (5th Cir. 1975) (Title VII). Accordingly, we will make an independent examination of whether the Police Department’s employment practices, as a matter of law, were proscribed under Title VII or the equal protection clause.
A. THE MECHANICS OF HIRING AND PROMOTION WITHIN THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Hiring and promotion within the Chicago Police Department is governed by state law. The Illinois Municipal Code, Ill.Rev. Stat. ch. 24, § 10-1-7, provides that applicants for positions in a municipal police force must take competitive examinations, The statute states that “[s]uch examinations shall be practical in their character, and shall relate to those matters which will fairly test the relative capacity of the persons examined to discharge the duties of the positions to which they seek to be appointed, and shall include tests of physical qualifications and health, and when appropriate of manual skill.” A roster of eligible candidates is then to be prepared from the results of the examinations, with rank on the roster to be determined by each candidate’s scores. The roster is to include “the persons whose general average standing upon examination... is not less than the minimum fixed by the rules of [the] commission, and who are otherwise eligible.” Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, § 10-1-12. When a vacancy occurs, it must be filled by the candidate standing highest on the roster. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, § 10-1-14. A person’s name may be struck from the eligibility roster after two years. Id. If more than one examination is given within two years, however, or if the administering commission gives another examination after two years without striking from the roster the names of those remaining from the old examination, rank on the roster is to be determined by relative excellence without reference to the time of examination. Ill.Rev.Stat. ch. 24, § 10-1-12.
Pursuant to these statutory commands, the Chicago Civil Service Commission periodically administered a patrolman’s eligibility examination to individuals who met certain age, height, weight, and residency requirements. The examination from which appointments were being made at the time the Government filed suit was administered on December 4, 1971. It was a two-hour written examination containing 120 multiple choice questions designed to test vocabulary, grammar, word choice, arithmetic, and verbal and mathematical reasoning. Those who received a passing score on the written examination were required to submit to a physical and medical examination. The names of applicants who passed the physical and medical screening were then posted on a patrolman’s eligibility list in rank order according to their scores on the written test.
Whenever the Police Department needed patrolmen, the Commission supplied a list of names from the top of the eligibility list. The Department then conducted a background investigation of the individuals whose names had been supplied. An applicant was disqualified and removed from the eligibility list if the investigation proved that he had made false statements to the Commission or violated its rules in connection with his application or his examination, that he had ever been discharged from public employment for cause, or that evidence established his “bad character, dissolute habits, or immoral conduct.”
The Municipal Code similarly provides that promotional rosters must be based on competitive examinations, as well as “ascertained merit” and seniority. Vacancies must be filled by one of the three candidates at the top of the roster, and a high-ranking candidate cannot be passed over more than twice. Candidates can be struck from the promotional roster after two years if there are no existing vacancies. Ill.Rev. Stat. ch. 24, § 10-1-13.
The Chicago Civil Service Commission accordingly required patrolmen who sought promotion to the rank of sergeant to take a written examination. The examination at issue in this case was administered on August 18, 1973, and contained one hundred multiple choice questions designed to test a candidate’s knowledge of departmental regulations and procedures, and his judgment in situations that might confront a police sergeant. An eligibility roster was then derived from a weighted combination of scores on the written examination (sixty percent), recent patrolman efficiency ratings (thirty percent), and points for seniority (ten percent). Those who achieved a composite score of seventy were placed on the roster in rank order according to their composite scores. Promotions were to be made from the top of this list as positions became available.
The Illinois Municipal Code makes no distinction between the sexes in providing procedures for hiring and promotion to municipal police forces. Nonetheless, the Police Department has always maintained sexually segregated procedures for hiring and promotion. For the purposes of this case, the hiring of women was based on the 1972 policewoman’s/matron’s list, derived from a separate examination. Based on the record, there appears to have been no organized procedure governing the promotion of women within the Department.
B. TITLE VII
1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
The basic legal standard to be utilized in litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., was developed by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971), arid amplified in Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975). In Griggs, the Court held that a test for employment or promotion having a disproportionately adverse effect on black applicants was unlawful under Title VII unless it was demonstrably related to job performance. The Court stated:
The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited. 401 U.S. at 431, 91 S.Ct. at 853.
Therefore, a prima facie case of discrimination is established where evidence shows “that the tests in question select applicants for hire or promotion in a racial pattern significantly different from that of the pool of applicants.” Albemarle, 422 U.S. at 425, 95 S.Ct. at 2375. Stewart v. General Motors Corp., 542 F.2d at 449. Upon such a showing of disparate effect on minority applicants, the burden shifts to the employer to show “that any given requirement [has] a manifest relationship to the employment in question,” and that the “disparity [is] the product of nondiscriminatory factors.” Griggs, 401 U.S. at 432, 91 S.Ct. at 854; Stewart, 542 F.2d at 450. Where employment tests are at issue, courts have often required an employer to prove job-relatedness by evidence that the tests have been “validated” in accordance with the Guidelines issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the professional standards of the American Psychological Association that the Guidelines adopt. See, e. g., Douglas v. Hampton, 168 U.S.App.D.C. 62, 512 F.2d 976, 986 (1975); United States v. Georgia Power Co., 474 F.2d 906, 913 (5th Cir. 1973). The Supreme Court has held that in considering evidence of job-relatedness the EEOC Guidelines are entitled to great deference as the administrative interpretation of Title VII by the agency designated to enforce it. See Albemarle, 422 U.S. at 430-31, 95 S.Ct. 2362; Griggs, 401 U.S. at 433-34, 91 S.Ct. 849.
Moreover, since Title VII explicitly prohibits sexual as well as racial discrimination, see Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542, 91 S.Ct. 496, 27 L.Ed.2d 613 (1970), the standards laid down in Griggs should be applied when sex, as well as race, is at issue. See Bowe v. Colgate, Palmolive Co., 489 F.2d 896, 900 (7th Cir. 1973).
2. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
The district court, in applying these standards, permanently enjoined further hiring and promotion from the 1971 patrolman’s and the 1973 sergeant’s eligibility rosters. This decision was based on the court’s findings that the 1971 patrolman’s examination, the Department’s background investigation, and the 1973 sergeant’s examination each had an adverse impact on minority candidates and that these selection devices had not been shown to be job-related. Based on an independent review of the record, we hold that the district court’s conclusions were correct.
a. DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT
Hiring. The district court found that thirty-four percent of the total pool of applicants taking the 1971 patrolman’s examination were black or Hispanic, but that only ten percent of the candidates actually hired from the 1971 roster at the time its use was suspended were members of those minority groups. In analyzing the evidence, the court also examined the separate components making up the hiring process within the Chicago Police Department, and determined that each of them had a discriminatory impact. We find the court’s factual findings to be supported by substantial evidence and hold that the disparity produced by the combination of these components is enough to establish a prima facie case that the Department’s employment practices were discriminatory in violation of Title VII.
The district court first looked at comparative success on the 1971 patrolman’s examination and found that blacks and Hispanics failed at twice the rate of white applicants. Defendants contend that this evidence is insufficient to show discrimination because plaintiffs failed to show that the disproportionate failure rate resulted from racial factors. This argument misconceives the legal standard to be utilized in determining whether a prima facie case of discrimination exists within the meaning of Title VII. Plaintiffs did not need to show that the examination was devised with the intent to exclude racial minorities or that a direct causal relationship exists between an applicant’s race and his performance. Rather, plaintiffs needed only to show that the examination had an adverse impact on minority applicants as a group; at that point, the burden would be on the City to demonstrate that the examination in fact tested job-related qualifications. See Griggs, 401 U.S. at 431-32, 91 S.Ct. 849; Albemarle, 422 U.S. at 425, 95 S.Ct. 2362; Stewart, 542 F.2d at 450. See also Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976).
Second, the district court found that the Department’s background investigation disqualified a significantly greater percentage of minority applicants than white applicants. For example, blacks were disqualified at twice the rate of white applicants because of a previous arrest record and at three times the rate of white applicants because of a negative employment record. Since 1968, 25.7 percent of the black applicants who underwent background investigations were disqualified as compared to 15.2 percent of the white applicants. Defendants assert that it was unsound for the district court to focus on the comparative failure rates of black and white applicants. Instead, they urge, the court should have compared the respective pass rates of the two groups. While black people were disqualified at approximately five-thirds the rate of white people, the white group only passed the background screening at about eight-sevenths the rate of the black group. The latter figure is less impressive than the former one for the purposes of establishing discriminatory impact.
This argument might be convincing if the district court had relied solely on the disparity in the results of the background screening in finding that the Department’s employment practices were discriminatory. The court utilized the disparity in screening results, however, only in conjunction with other evidence in reaching its conclusion. It was certainly entitled to do this, whether it viewed the statistics in terms of passing or failing. See Green v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 523 F.2d 1290, 1294-95 (8th Cir. 1975). Moreover, the court’s ultimate finding was based on the percentage of white applicants actually hired in contrast to the percentage of minority applicants hired. This emphasis on selection rather than disqualification conforms with the defendants’ wishes.
Promotion. The district court’s finding that the use of the 1973 sergeant’s roster had an adverse impact on minority groups is also supported by substantial evidence. Of the 6,555 patrolmen who took the 1973 sergeant’s examination, 1,298 were black or Hispanic. While 1,918 patrolmen achieved a passing composite score of seventy by combining their examination score and points for efficiency ratings and seniority, the parties agreed, based on previous experience, that only four hundred of those who passed had any chance for promotion. Only twenty-nine of these first four hundred men were black or Hispanic. Thus, 2.23 percent of the minority candidates taking the examination had a practical chance of being promoted compared to 7.07 percent of the white candidates. We agree with the district court that a prima facie case of discrimination can be based on this disparity-
Defendants mount two principal attacks on the validity of these statistics. First, they assert that the difference between the average performance of black and white candidates on the written examination is too slight to support an inference of discrimination. This argument misses the point, for it is the impact of the examination on the racial composition of the first four hundred finishers, not the average impact, that is significant. The ultimate question is whether substantially fewer minority patrolmen than white patrolmen were promoted to the rank of sergeant, and average scores are irrelevant in answering that question.
Second, defendants attack the district court’s reliance on combined statistics for blacks and Hispanies, contending that separate statistics indicate that Hispanic candidates for promotion in fact were as successful as whites on the examination both in terms of pass rate and practical success rate. Even assuming that this contention is correct, however, plaintiffs have still made out a prima facie case that the examination produced a discriminatory impact. If black and Hispanic candidates are considered separately, the adverse impact which the testing procedure had on blacks is even more striking: only 1.77 percent of the black candidates, compared to 7.07 percent of the white candidates, made the top four hundred places on the roster. Defendants’ argument only goes to the appropriateness of including Hispanies in the remedy to be imposed to correct discrimination in promotional practices.
b. JOB-RELATEDNESS
The defendants attempted to justify the use of the selection and promotion practices that excluded minority candidates at disproportionate rates by introducing statistical studies and expert opinion evidence purporting to establish the job-relatedness of the challenged devices. The district court found that the validity studies offered by defendants failed to comply with the requirements of the EEOC Guidelines and APA Standards for test validation and that defendants’ experts failed to establish that any of the selection and promotion devices were demonstrably job-related.
On appeal the defendants seek to challenge the district court’s conclusions by relitigating the probativeness of the evidence introduced and rejected at trial. The findings of the trial court with respect to this evidence — statistical studies and the testimony of expert witnesses — are perfect examples of subsidiary facts to which the clearly erroneous standard applies. As this court has observed, “[t]he resolution of such evidentiary conflicts is the precise function for which our trial courts sit [and it] is only necessary for us to determine on review whether the findings supporting the judgment have an evidentiary basis.” Harry Alter Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 285 F.2d 903, 906 (7th Cir. 1961); Prince v. Packer Mfg. Co., 419 F.2d 34, 36 (7th Cir. 1969). We should reverse the district court’s findings only if, with due deference to the trial judge’s resolution of conflicting evidence and to his determination of credibility, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Guzman v. Pichirilo, 369 U.S. 698, 702, 82 S.Ct. 1095, 8 L.Ed.2d 205 (1962). We conclude that no mistake has been made and affirm the findings of the district court.
The 1971 Patrolman’s Examination. Defendants sought to show that the 1971 patrolman’s examination was job-related through the testimony of an outside expert commissioned by the City to conduct a validity study of the 1971 examination. This was a “criterion validity” study designed to determine whether scores on patrolman’s entry examinations correlated with subsequent performance on the job measured by criteria selected to indicate job success. Comparisons were made between success on the examinations and four criteria: (1) patrolman efficiency ratings, (2) departmental awards, (3) disciplinary actions, and (4) performance on sergeant’s promotion examinations and actual promotion to command ranks. Although the defendants’ expert testified that this study established the validity of the patrolman’s examination, we are persuaded that the district court properly rejected this evidence under the governing EEOC Guidelines. Compliance with these Guidelines is generally required absent some showing that a cogent reason exists for noncompliance. United States v. Georgia Power Co., 474 F.2d 906, 913 (5th Cir. 1973).
The correlations between the examinations and each criterion failed to meet minimum professional requirements. The study showed no correlation between test performance and disciplinary actions. There was some correlation with efficiency ratings, but it did not reach the level of statistical significance required by the EEOC Guidelines to ensure it was attributable to some factor other than chance. See 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5(c)(1).
The study did discover a small but statistically significant correlation between test performance by white applicants and departmental awards, but found no correlation for that criterion with respect to black applicants. The EEOC Guidelines require, where technically feasible, that an examination be separately validated for both minority and nonminority candidates. 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5(b)(5). The Supreme Court in Albemarle cited this Guideline with approval. 422 U.S. at 435, 95 S.Ct. 2362. See also Rogers v. International Paper Co., 510 F.2d 1340, 1350 (8th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 423 U.S. 809, 96 S.Ct. 19, 46 L.Ed.2d 29 (1975); Georgia Power Co., 474 F.2d at 913-14. Since an adequate minority sample made differential validation in this study technically feasible, the Guidelines were not satisfied.
The only valid correlation revealed by the study was between success on the patrolman’s examination and subsequent success on the sergeant’s examination, leading to promotion to command ranks. Under the EEOC Guidelines, however, promotability is a proper criterion for validation only where the “great majority” of employees can expect promotion within a “reasonable period of time.” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.-4(c)(1). This approach was endorsed by the Supreme Court in Albemarle. 422 U.S. at 434, 95 S.Ct. 2362. The district court found that only four hundred out of twelve thousand patrolmen could expect promotion within a reasonable time, negating the importance of any correlation between performance on the two examinations. Moreover, the EEOC Guidelines discount promotability as a valid criterion when the potential of employees to perform high level jobs will change over time. 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(c)(1). This would certainly be the case with a patrolman’s ability to perform command duties, because

Question: This question concerns the second listed respondent. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "federal government (including DC)", specifically "other, not listed, not able to classify". Which specific federal government agency best describes this litigant?
A. United States - in corporate capacity (i.e., as representative of "the people") - in criminal cases
B. United States - in corporate capacity - civil cases
C. special wartime agency
D. Other unlisted federal agency (includes the President of the US)
E. Unclear or nature not ascertainable
Answer:

Answer: A