Opinion ID: 354271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether a showing of intentional discrimination is required

Text: 12 In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971), and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1972), the Supreme Court articulated the governing principles for establishing a violation under Title VII. These cases make clear that to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff need only show that facially neutral standards have a disproportionate impact on minorities. If the plaintiff can demonstrate that employment standards are discriminatory in effect, the employer must meet the burden of showing that any given requirement (has) . . . a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Griggs, supra at 432, 91 S.Ct. at 854. If the challenged job requirements are shown to be job related by the employer, the plaintiff may then establish that other selection devices without a similar discriminatory effect would also serve the employer's legitimate interest. . . . Albemarle, supra at 425, 95 S.Ct. 2362, quoting McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 801, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668. The legal standard of Griggs and Albemarle was followed by this court in Title VII suits in United States v. City of Chicago, 549 F.2d 415 (7th Cir. 1977). 13 Appellees contend, however, that later decisions of the Supreme Court General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976) and Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976) mandate that no violation of Title VII can occur absent a showing of discriminatory purpose. Appellees also assert, relying on National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833, 96 S.Ct. 2465, 49 L.Ed.2d 245 (1976), that the Tenth Amendment requires that Title VII be interpreted only to encompass purposeful discrimination by employers. Furthermore, appellees argue that if the constitutional basis for Title VII is the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Commerce Clause, a finding of intentional discrimination is required. We find none of these contentions persuasive. 14 A. The Impact of Washington v. Davis and General Electric Co. v. Gilbert on Griggs and Albemarle 15 In Washington v. Davis, supra, the Supreme Court held that a showing of discriminatory purpose is necessary to establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court made clear that a showing of discriminatory purpose was not required in Title VII suits: 16 Under Title VII, Congress provided that when hiring and promotion practices disqualifying substantially disproportionate numbers of blacks are challenged, discriminatory purpose need not be proved . . . 426 U.S. at 246-47, 96 S.Ct. at 2051. 17 Thus Washington v. Davis expressly refutes the contention of appellees that discriminatory purpose or intent must be demonstrated in a Title VII case. 18 General Electric Co. v. Gilbert is no more helpful to appellees' argument. In Gilbert, the Court held that a plan which provided nonoccupational sickness and accident benefits to all employees but excluded disabilities arising from pregnancy did not violate Title VII. The touchstone of Gilbert was that there was no showing of discriminatory effect no evidence was introduced to suggest that men received more benefits from the plan than did women: 19 As there is no proof that the package is in fact worth more to men than to women, it is impossible to find any gender-based discriminatory effect in this scheme simply because women disabled as a result of pregnancy do not receive benefits: that is to say, gender-based discrimination does not result simply because an employer's disability benefits plan is less than all-inclusive. For all that appears, pregnancy-related disabilities constitute an additional risk, unique to women, and the failure to compensate them for this risk does not destroy the presumed parity of the benefits, accruing to men and women alike, which results from the facially evenhanded inclusion of risks. 429 U.S. at 138-140, 97 S.Ct. at 409-10. 20 Moreover, the Court expressly reaffirmed the holding of Griggs : 21 . . . our cases recognize that a prima facie violation of Title VII can be established in some circumstances upon proof that the effect of an otherwise facially neutral plan or classification is to discriminate against members of one class or another. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 2051, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). For example in the context of a challenge, under the provisions of § 703(a)(2), to a facially neutral employment test, this Court held that a prima facie case of discrimination would be established if, even absent proof of intent, the consequences of the test were 'invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.' Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). 22 See also the separate concurring opinions of Justice Stewart and Justice Blackmun both adhering to Griggs and stating that plaintiffs in Gilbert had failed to prove a discriminatory effect. 429 U.S. at 146, 97 S.Ct. 401, 408. 23 Cases subsequent to Washington and Gilbert have continued to adhere to Griggs. See, e. g., Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty, 434 U.S. 136, 138, 98 S.Ct. 347, 54 L.Ed.2d 356 (Dec. 6, 1977); Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 2726, 53 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977). We therefore find no merit to appellees' contention that subsequent cases have eroded the vitality of Griggs. 5 24 B. The Impact of the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments on Title VII 25 In the 1972 Amendments to Title VII, Congress, acting under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, expanded the coverage of Title VII to include state and local governments. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445, 447, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1975). There is no dispute that in enacting the 1972 Amendments to Title VII to extend coverage to the states as employers, Congress exercised its power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 453 n. 9, 96 S.Ct. at 2670. 26 Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: 27 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. 28 In enacting the 1972 Amendments, Congress intended to extend to government employees the same benefits and protections in equal employment as the employees in the private sector of the economy. S.Rep.No. 92-415, 92nd Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 9. Cf. Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 841, 96 S.Ct. 1949, 48 L.Ed.2d 416 (1976). Moreover, Congress was fully aware of the legal standards articulated in Griggs and consciously desired to apply these standards to government employees. S.Rep.No. 92-415 at 5, 10, 14. Thus the question before us is whether the 1972 Amendments with their authorization of the Griggs rationale is appropriate legislation within the meaning of § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce that Amendment's prohibition against discrimination. Appellees contend that since the 1972 Amendments of Title VII are based on the Fourteenth Amendment, the legal standard in proving a claim of discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment a showing of discriminatory purpose must be incorporated into Title VII. 6 We disagree. 29 The Supreme Court has considered an analogous claim to that of appellees in Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641, 86 S.Ct. 1717, 16 L.Ed.2d 828 (1966). In Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. 45, 79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1959), the Court had sustained a North Carolina English literacy test for voting as not necessarily violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. Subsequent to Lassiter, Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 4(e) of which provides that persons who have satisfied certain requirements not here pertinent cannot be denied the right to vote. The issue in Katzenbach v. Morgan was whether § 4(e) was constitutional. 30 Under appellees' argument in this case, § 4(e) would have been unconstitutional since it prohibited certain state regulations of voting which had previously not been found unconstitutional. However, the Court specifically rejected this approach, focusing instead on the power given to Congress under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment: 31 Thus our task in this case is not to determine whether the New York English literacy requirement as applied to deny the right to vote to a person who successfully completed the sixth grade in a Puerto Rican school violates the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, our decision in Lassiter v. Northampton Election Bd., 360 U.S. 45, (79 S.Ct. 985, 3 L.Ed.2d 1072) sustaining the North Carolina English literacy requirement as not in all circumstances prohibited by the first sections of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, is inapposite. . . . Lassiter did not present the question before us here: Without regard to whether the judiciary would find that the Equal Protection Clause itself nullifies New York's English literacy requirement as so applied, could Congress prohibit the enforcement of the state law by legislating under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment? In answering this question, our task is limited to determining whether such legislation is, as required by § 5, appropriate legislation to enforce the Equal Protection Clause. 384 U.S. at 649-50, 86 S.Ct. at 1722. 32 In determining whether § 4(e) is appropriate legislation as required by § 5, the Court stated that § 5 granted to Congress the same broad powers expressed in the Necessary and Proper Clause, Id. at 650, 86 S.Ct. at 1723, and that therefore: 33 Correctly viewed, § 5 is a positive grant of legislative power authorizing Congress to exercise its discretion in determining whether and what legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 651, 86 S.Ct. at 1723. 34 Under this discretionary power given to Congress, the test of whether a statute to enforce the Equal Protection Clause is appropriate legislation is whether the statute is  'plainly adapted to that end' and whether it is not prohibited by but is consistent with 'the letter and spirit of the constitution.'  Id. at 651, 86 S.Ct. at 1724 (quoting from Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 421, 4 L.Ed. 579). After articulating these guiding principles, the Court upheld the constitutionality of § 4(e). See also, Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 91 S.Ct. 260, 27 L.Ed.2d 272 (1970). 35 The present case is governed by these same principles. It is undisputed that the 1972 Amendments to Title VII are an enactment to enforce the anti-discrimination prohibitions of the Equal Protection Clause and are plainly adapted to that end. Indeed, the whole purpose of the 1972 Amendments was to give public employees the same protections against discrimination as those enjoyed by employees in the private sector. Cf. Chandler v. Roudebush, 425 U.S. 840, 96 S.Ct. 1949, 48 L.Ed.2d 416 (1976). It was well within congressional authority to weigh the competing policy considerations and determine that public employees required the safeguards against discrimination given to private employees by the Griggs standard. Cf. Katzenbach v. Morgan, supra at 653, 86 S.Ct. 1717. Thus, since the 1972 Amendments are clearly rationally related to and consistent with the letter and spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the means chosen were not in themselves unconstitutional, we conclude that Congress could constitutionally incorporate the Griggs test into the 1972 Amendments. 36 Appellees also argue that as a matter of federalism under the Tenth Amendment, it is necessary for a plaintiff bringing a Title VII action against a governmental unit to prove intentional discrimination. This argument, however, is inapposite as Congress, as discussed above, relied on § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Commerce Clause as a basis for the 1972 Amendments to Title VII. Moreover, our holding that Congress could constitutionally incorporate the Griggs standard in the 1972 Amendments under § 5 makes it unnecessary to decide whether Congress could achieve the same result under the Commerce Clause. Cf. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, supra. 37