Opinion ID: 445598
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Principles of Title VII Litigation in this Context

Text: 22 This Court's recent precedent establishes that a challenge to an allegedly discretionary promotion procedure fits within the disparate treatment analysis, rather than the disparate impact analysis under Title VII. Carroll v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 708 F.2d 183, 188-89 (5th Cir.1983); Pouncy v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 668 F.2d 795, 800 (5th Cir.1982). 3 Plaintiffs in the instant case challenge the NLRB's discretionary appraisal and promotion procedure. Accordingly, the district court properly considered the NLRB promotion procedures in light of the disparate treatment analysis. 23 Disparate treatment analysis, unlike disparate impact analysis, requires a showing that the employer acted with a discriminatory intent. In a class action challenging an employer's entire promotion procedures, plaintiffs must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that racial discrimination was the [employer's] standard operating procedure--the regular rather than the usual practice. See International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 1855, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977). Statistical evidence is highly relevant in a disparate treatment case challenging an employer's promotion practices. In a proper case, a court may infer racial discrimination if gross statistical disparities are shown in analyzing relevant statistics. Carroll, 708 F.2d at 190; Pouncy, 668 F.2d at 802. This Court has noted, While gross statistical disparities may alone establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination in a proper case, the Supreme Court has cautioned 'that statistics are not irrefutable; they come in infinite variety and, like any other kind of evidence, they may be rebutted. In short, their usefulness depends on all of the surrounding facts and circumstances.'  Wilkins v. University of Houston, 654 F.2d 388, 395 (5th Cir.1981), vacated and remanded, 459 U.S. 809, 103 S.Ct. 34, 74 L.Ed.2d 47 (1982), aff'd in relevant part on remand, 695 F.2d 134 (5th Cir.1983) (quoting Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 340, 97 S.Ct. at 1856-7). In probing discriminatory intent, a trial court may examine the history of the employer's practices, 4 anecdotal evidence of class members, and the degree of opportunity to treat employees unfairly in the appraisal process. Carroll, 708 F.2d at 190. 24 In evaluating the district court's conclusion that the NLRB's promotional practices were not the product of discriminatory intent, this Court's appellate review centers on the fact finder's ultimate conclusion as to the employer's motivation. Parson v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 727 F.2d 473, 476 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 3516, 82 L.Ed.2d 824 (1984). The district court's finding on the ultimate issue, that of discrimination vel non, ... is subject to the 'clearly erroneous' standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). Williams v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 718 F.2d 715, 718 (5th Cir.1983) (per curiam). See also Parson, 727 F.2d at 475-76. 5 25 Plaintiffs' statistical evidence may be broken into two sets: those statistics related to the rates of promotion for professional employees at various GS levels and those statistics related to promotions to supervisory positions. 26