Opinion ID: 2745691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Score Variance

Text: Second, the district court found “substantial variance” among the promotion scores: of the 517 tested candidates, the 2002 process yielded a raw-score point spread of 184 points between the highest and lowest candidates (358.75–174.75), out of a possible 384.5 points. (Id. at 23.) Our review of the exam results reveals no clear error in this finding. (R. 656-23, 2002 Process Exam Results at 1–14.) Nor do we detect clear error in the court’s finding of significant variance. Cf. Police Officers for Equal Rights, 916 F.2d at 1102–03 (permitting rank ordering where “[t]here was a spread of more than forty points among 71 test takers,” the highest score was 89.66, and the passing score was 70). Though plaintiffs stress that only one point separated approximately 30 of the more than 500 candidate scores, that circumstance pales in comparison to the sort of score-bunching found problematic elsewhere. See Guardians, 630 F.2d at 103 & nn.19–20 (finding insufficient reliability for rank ordering where nearly 9,000 applicants, or 2/3 of the passing scores, had scores between 94 and 97, out of 110 possible points). Moreover, the focus on promotional Nos. 13-5452/5454 Johnson, et al. v. City of Memphis Page 24 scores here exaggerates the 2002 process’s bunching effect, because the same candidates’ raw scores ranged between 303 and 341, or 79.0 and 88.7 on a 100-point scale. (See R. 656-23, 2002 Process Exam Results at 3–4.) Varying seniority points (1–10) contributed significantly to this purported bunching problem.