Opinion ID: 618714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Richard Wright

Text: The NAACP Plaintiffs presented the expert report of Dr. Richard Wright to establish their prima facie case of disparate-impact discrimination. In his 2008 report, Wright identified disparities between the percentage of qualified African-Americans in the relevant labor market, which he defined in several alternative ways, and the percentage of African-Americans employed by North Hudson. The District Court first considered Wright's definition of the relevant labor market. The U.S. Census Bureau reported that in 2003 the average daily commute was twenty-four minutes nationally and twenty-nine minutes for North Hudson residents. By performing a geographic information system analysis, Wright concluded that most people living within a ten-mile radius of North Hudson's center would have no more than a twenty-nine-minute commute. Wright also opined that North Hudson could reasonably be expected to draw its employees from across New Jersey because state-regulated workers tend to search for jobs statewide. Wright concluded that the appropriate labor market from which North Hudson may be expected to draw its protective service personnel is either the whole state or the neighboring three-county area. The District Court accepted this definition because it was based in sound reasoning, and because [North Hudson] did not dispute it, present evidence to contradict it, or suggest an alternative definition. North Hudson, 742 F.Supp.2d at 516. The District Court next considered whether Wright's comparisons demonstrated the kind of substantial statistical proof and causal relationship necessary to establish a prima facie disparate-impact claim. To do so, Wright compared the proportion of African-Americans employed by North Hudson with the percentages of African-Americans employed in full time protective service positions in the Tri-County Area and in New Jersey. The parties disputedand continue to disputewhether looking to the ratio of African-Americans in protective service jobs provides an accurate prediction of their expected presence in firefighting jobs. Although Wright parenthetically noted that protective service jobs consist of mainly police officers [and] firefighters, a 2000 list of North Hudson's Protective Service Occupations codes suggests that this category may also include a substantial number of non-analogous positions, including crossing guards, gaming surveillance officers, private detectives and investigators, animal control workers, parking enforcement workers, and fish and game wardens. Other positions with protective service codes, like lifeguards, transit and railroad police, and bailiffs and correctional officers, may involve some skills similar to those required for firefighting, but they unquestionably diverge in other significant ways. The District Court concluded that [t]he qualifications for employment in full time protective service work in the Tri-[C]ounty [A]rea or in New Jersey would be similar to the qualifications to be employed by [North Hudson] and that the protective service comparison more closely track[ed] the requirement of a qualified population. North Hudson, 742 F.Supp.2d at 517. Wright's results in this comparison were compelling. In the Tri-County Area, 37.4% of protective service positions are held by African-Americans. Based on this percentage, one would expect 121 North Hudson firefighters to be African-American. Similarly, 20% of protective service workers statewide are African-American, so, based on that percentage, one would expect North Hudson to employ sixty-five African-American firefighters. The differences of 13 and 8.76 standard deviations in these comparisons leave virtually no probability that the discrepancies are the result of chance. Wright's calculations indicated that African-Americans are significantly under-represented in North Hudson. Given the near impossibility that the disparities are caused merely by chance, Wright concluded: [T]his likely results from discriminatory hiring practices. [5] The District Court agreed and found that [t]he difference between these expected numbers of African Americans 121 or 65and the actual number employed by [North Hudson]2is striking and is sufficiently substantial to raise an inference of causation. [6] North Hudson, 742 F.Supp.2d at 517.