Opinion ID: 657321
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cosgrove's gender discrimination claim

Text: 25 Under Title VII, discrimination can be demonstrated through evidence of either 'disparate treatment' or 'disparate impact.' To show 'disparate treatment,' the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant had a discriminatory intent or motive. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 986, 108 S.Ct. 2777, 2784, 101 L.Ed.2d 827 (1988). 'Disparate impact' is based upon the premise that some employment practices, adopted without a deliberately discriminatory motive, may in operation be functionally equivalent to intentional discrimination. Id. at 987, 108 S.Ct. at 2785. The evidence in 'disparate impact' cases usually focuses on statistical disparities, rather than specific incidents, and on competing explanations for those disparities. Id. Cosgrove submitted evidence for both tests. 26 During discovery, Cosgrove focused on four male employees in her department. At trial, she sought to support her claim of sex discrimination in compensation and promotions through a comparison with the compensation and advancement of other male Sears employees. 5 Sears' expert witness, Dr. Joan Haworth, performed her own analysis of employees comparable to Cosgrove in compensation and promotion. The information that Sears provided revealed that: (1) during the year 1976-77, women in similar positions to Cosgrove averaged a 13.0% salary increase, as opposed to Cosgrove's 7.0%, and 8.4% for men; (2) Cosgrove made checklist status in the longest period of time as compared to all but one of the five women chosen by Dr. Haworth who were similarly situated at Sears; and (3) of the five persons in Departments 607 and 618 who were promoted to a checklist position, both male and female, all achieved the position faster than Cosgrove, the average being two years. Thus, statistically, Cosgrove failed to demonstrate gender discrimination through either 'disparate treatment' or 'disparate impact' with regard to pay increases and promotions, since all but one of the similarly situated employees compared with her during the trial, both male and female, were promoted faster than Cosgrove, and received correspondingly higher salaries. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court regarding Cosgrove's gender discrimination claim is affirmed.