Opinion ID: 2745691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Title VII Disparate-Impact Standard

Text: Though Title VII disparate-impact claims originated with the Supreme Court’s decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), Congress codified the disparate-impact standard in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1); Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 577–78 (2009). Courts assess the viability of these claims using a three-step burden-shifting framework akin to the familiar McDonnell-Douglas standard. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)–(k)(1)(C); Black Law Enforcement Officers Ass’n v. City of Akron, 824 F.2d 475, 480 (6th Cir. 1987). [First,] a plaintiff establishes a prima facie violation by showing that an employer uses “a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). Nos. 13-5452/5454 Johnson, et al. v. City of Memphis Page 8 [Second, the] employer may defend against liability by demonstrating that the practice is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” Ibid. [Third,] . . . if the employer meets that burden, . . . [the] plaintiff may still succeed by showing that the employer refuses to adopt an available alternative employment practice that has less disparate impact and serves the employer’s legitimate needs. §§ 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii) and (C). Ricci, 557 U.S. at 578; see also Davis v. Cintas Corp., 717 F.3d 476, 494–95 (6th Cir. 2013). The City contests plaintiffs’ step-three showing of less discriminatory alternatives. To satisfy this element, the plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) the availability of alternative procedures that serve the employer’s legitimate interests and (2) produce “substantially equally valid” results, but with (3) less discriminatory outcomes. 29 C.F.R. § 1607.3(B); see also Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 998 (1988); Shollenbarger v. Planes Moving & Storage, 297 F. App’x 483, 486–87 (6th Cir. 2008). As with Title VII claims of intentional discrimination, disparate-impact plaintiffs bear the burdens of production and persuasion at this step. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(m), 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). Consequently, plaintiffs may not rest on speculation regarding the availability, validity, or less discriminatory nature of their proffered alternatives. See, e.g., Allen v. City of Chicago, 351 F.3d 306, 313, 316–17 (7th Cir. 2003) (deeming insufficient “vague or fluctuating” alternatives, and finding that the plaintiffs failed to substantiate their “bare assertion” of valid, less discriminatory alternatives); Shollenbarger, 297 F. App’x at 487 (emphasizing that “[t]he plaintiffs [a]re obligated to prove equally effective alternatives,” and that “[t]he purpose of [step three] is not to second guess the employer’s business decisions”). B. Components of the 2002 Process & Plaintiffs’ Proposed Alternatives As noted above, the 2002 process consisted of five testing components: (1) a “lowfidelity” video test, which required oral responses to video depictions of law enforcement scenarios; (2) an investigative logic test, consisting of multiple-choice and short-answer questions; (3) an open-book job-knowledge test; (4) an application test, with weighted scores differentiating between the most and least effective responses; and (5) a written communications exam testing for grammar and clarity. Nos. 13-5452/5454 Johnson, et al. v. City of Memphis Page 9 As they did before the district court, plaintiffs assert three available alternatives to improve the 2002 process: (1) the 1996 process’s high-fidelity role-playing exercise, which required candidates to respond to simulated law-enforcement scenarios (“1996 simulation”); (2) assessments of candidates’ “integrity” and “conscientiousness”; and (3) a merit-promotion system similar to one used by the Chicago Police Department, which consists of interviews by merit-review boards. Yet, in arguing before this court for these alternatives, they shirk their duty to demonstrate the benefits of the Chicago-plan and integrity/conscientiousness theories, defending only the 1996 simulation as equally valid and less discriminatory. (Third Br. at 31– 37.) Similarly problematic, plaintiffs neglect to explain how any of these alternatives would fit into the 2002 process, but we gather that they would either replace or complement its existing components. Plaintiffs vouch for the 1996 simulation by pointing to its past success, including a sterling validation report documenting its non-discriminatory results. They also tout its benefits compared to the less practical (i.e., less like actual job duties), low-fidelity video test used in the 2002 process. Finally, they rely on their expert’s claim that the 1996 simulation is more valid than the 2002 tests and “easily replicated.” (See Third Br. at 32–35; R. 648-13, Trial Tr. (DeShon) at 1681–82; see also R. 648-15, Trial Tr. (DeShon) at 1848 (likening the difference between high-fidelity simulations and low-fidelity response exercises to “knowing versus doing”).) C. The District Court’s Bench-Trial Findings Regarding Available Alternatives After summarizing the proffered alternatives, which the court characterized as “broad suggestions [of] alternative testing modalities,” the court found that plaintiffs satisfied the stepthree burden of demonstrating available, equally valid, less discriminatory alternatives. It reasoned as follows: It is of considerable significance that the City had achieved a successful promotional program in 1996 and yet failed to build upon that success. While the 1996 process was not perfect it appears to have satisfied all of the legal requirements of promotional processes. The 2000 process departed substantially from the 1996 model in its abandonment of the practical exercise and reweighting of the remaining elements. The 2002 processes, while arguably more Nos. 13-5452/5454 Johnson, et al. v. City of Memphis Page 10 sophisticated than its predecessors, suffered from a grossly disproportionate impact on minority candidates. It is unnecessary for the Court to scrutinize the advisability of incorporating assessments of qualities such as integrity and conscientiousness or the relative merits of the Chicago process. It is sufficient to acknowledge that the existence of such alternative measures and methods belies, as Plaintiffs suggest, Defendants’ position that they had no choice but to go forward with the 2002 promotion process despite its adverse impact because no alternative methods with less adverse impact were available. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden because none of the alternatives now suggested were proposed at the time the 2002 process was implemented. This argument misconstrues the appropriate standard. Plaintiffs must prove that there was “another available method of evaluation which was equally valid and less discriminatory.” Bryant v. City of Chicago, 200 F.3d 1092, 1094 (7th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs are not required to have proposed the alternative. The requirement is only that the alternative was available. The Court reads “availability” in this context to mean that Defendant either knew or should have known that such an alternative existed. Plaintiffs have amply demonstrated that Defendant knew of all three alternatives they have set forth. (R. 388, Bench Trial Op. at 25–26.) Notably, the court relies on the relative success of the 1996 test, without (1) requiring evidence that the 2002 process would benefit from incorporating the 1996 test’s simulation, or (2) addressing the City’s interest in test-security, in light of the 1996 simulation’s documented cheating. Also, the district court expressly declines to consider the merits of the integrity/conscientiousness and Chicago-plan alternatives, resting its conclusion solely on the City’s denial of alternatives. D. The City’s Challenge to the Court’s Analysis The City challenges the district court’s judgment, asserting both legal error and factual deficiencies with plaintiffs’ step-three showing. Though plaintiffs characterize the City’s argument as an attack on the district court’s factual findings, invoking the deference of clear-error review, the district court’s analysis contains legal errors subject to our de novo review. Beaven, 622 F.3d at 547. Nos. 13-5452/5454 Johnson, et al. v. City of Memphis Page 11 First, the district court readily admits crediting the Chicago-plan and integrity/conscientiousness alternatives without considering their relative merit; this approach conflicts with Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs prove the availability of equally valid, less discriminatory measures. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(m), 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i)–(ii); 29 C.F.R. § 1607.3(B); Allen, 351 F.3d at 316–17; Shollenbarger, 297 F. App’x at 487. Second, the district court accords “considerable significance” to the results of the 1996 simulation with no discussion of the City’s test-security concerns. Courts recognize employers’ legitimate interest in preserving the integrity of their employment processes. E.g., Hearn v. City of Jackson, 340 F. Supp. 2d 728, 742 (S.D. Miss. 2003) (overruling disparate-impact plaintiffs’ proposal requiring all applicants to complete a lengthy, interview-based selection procedure, noting the city’s legitimate interests in resource preservation, avoiding the appearance of selection bias, and preventing later applicants from obtaining the questions in advance), aff’d,