Opinion ID: 1973341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court's Finding of Unlawful Sex Discrimination.

Text: The Superior Court found that plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of discrimination under all three modes of proof outlined in our prior opinion, supra, and further found that the City of Auburn had not come forth with an explanation that would rebut that prima facie case. The lower court's opinion analyzed in particular detail the evidence in support of the disparate impact mode of proof, and its factual finding of discrimination against women in the hiring of police officers by the City of Auburn under that mode of proof is well supported by the record. That finding was based upon a statistical analysis of the negative correlation between the female applicants' placement on the oral interview and their scoring on the written examination. The Superior Court concluded, [w]hether this court looks to general statistics or applicant pool statistics, the conclusion is inescapable, that the oral interview process affects female applicants more harshly than male applicants. The City of Auburn sought to explain the disparate impact of the oral examination by arguing the necessity for prior police experience as a qualification for employment. Concluding that prior police experience was not a business necessity, see Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431, 91 S.Ct. 849, 853, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971), and thus rejecting the City's explanation, the Superior Court found that plaintiffs had met their ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue of unlawful discrimination. The Superior Court also determined that unlawful sex discrimination had been proved by the disparate treatment and past pattern modes of proof. As found by the court below, the job advertisements used up to and including the subject controversy invite applicants to `measure up as a man', and at least one responsible city official had referred to a woman police officer as a luxury that could not be afforded and as just a pretty face. A specifically identified police captain told plaintiff Hall, according to her unchallenged testimony, that we at the Auburn police department are not ready for female officers as yet. Furthermore, statistical evidence showed that the height requirements in use [by the Auburn police department] until recently excluded 94% of the women as opposed to 19% of the men and that the weight requirements excluded 50% of the women as opposed to 35% of the men. Statistical evidence also showed that women comprise about 56% of the service workers in Androscoggin County and about 8% of the protective service workers in the nation; in contrast, only one woman has been certified for an Auburn police job since 1974, and that certification was a qualified one and never eventuated in the applicant's being hired. While the Superior Court's disparate impact analysis focused principally upon the oral examination given by the Civil Service Commission, the evidence, when analyzed under the other two modes of proof, supported the court's finding of unlawful discrimination generally in Auburn's police recruitment. Supported as they are in the record evidence, the trial court's findings of unlawful sex discrimination are immune from reversal on appeal under the controlling clearly erroneous test of M.R.Civ.P. 52(a).