United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982-12-03
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; bench judgment for applicant (back pay) on disparate-impact theory; employer appeal; panel on rehearing after Connecticut v. Teal affirms liability (Costa II, 1982), then en banc court reinstates original reversal (1983) -- both opinions are in this one record; result: claimant-lost; claim: (a)(2)
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 | Adverse employment action affecting compensation, terms, conditions, privileges, or status | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(2); party: plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list; count: second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal; subject: party=plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list; count=second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal | failure-to-hire/rejected-under-minimum-height-rule | Although plaintiff’s name appeared first on the list, she was rejected because she did not meet the height requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [36091:36210] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1. |
| /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 | Discriminatory causation ("because of" protected trait) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(2) Pure disparate-impact theory; no discriminatory purpose alleged ("Absent any discriminatory purpose"). | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 | Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; claim: (a)(2); party: plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list; count: second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal; theory: impact is measured in the hiring round at issue (women competed only with women); subject: party=plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list; count=second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal; theory=impact is measured in the hiring round at issue (women competed only with women) Height rule that would exclude ~80% of women vs ~20% of men has no sex-based impact where the hiring round was restricted to women: she lost to taller women, not to men. Teal's bar on the bottom-line defense presupposes an impact at some step. [law], not [no-evidence]: the statistics and the hiring sequence were undisputed; the reversal turns only on the legal unit of analysis. | statistical-disparity/neutral-barrier-applied-to-single-sex-applicant-pool | Because the city needed female officers to perform certain duties, related, for example, to female prisoners, and because there were no women high enough on the integrated list to be hired, the city sought and received approval from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to hire from a list of exclusively female applicants.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [35583:35921] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.The most recent integrated list was therefore separated and the city hired the top two women on the women-only list who also met the 5 feet 6 inches height requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [35922:36090] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.Without the height requirement, the city would still have hired only two women. The only difference is that plaintiff would have been one of them.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [37733:37879] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.We remain unpersuaded that a hiring barrier can have a disparate impact on a protected group when competition for the job is only among members of that protected group.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [39478:39646] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.On these facts, the height requirement cannot be viewed as having a disparate effect on women. In the absence of a discriminatory effect, Teal simply does not apply.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [37940:38105] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.Plaintiff simply failed to make it over the initial hurdle of demonstrating that the challenged barrier had a discriminatory effect on women.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [36814:36955] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1. |
| /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 | Particular employment practice causing a disparate impact on a protected group | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / superseded basis: law; claim: (a)(2); party: plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list; count: second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal; theory: impact is measured by the rule in its general operation (national height statistics; one "police officer" job); opinion: panel (Bownes); subject: party=plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list; count=second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal; theory=impact is measured by the rule in its general operation (national height statistics; one "police officer" job); opinion=panel (Bownes) Panel measured impact by the rule's general operation (national height data, Dothard) rather than by the particular all-female round; treated "we hired only women" as a forbidden bottom-line defense. The women-only round (third fact) is the fact the employer relied on and the en banc court found dispositive. | general-population-statistics/minimum-height-requirement | Plaintiff produced undisputed evidence that eighty percent of the male population is at least five feet six inches tall, while less than twenty percent of the female population reaches this height.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [3943:4140] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.Plaintiff’s name correctly appeared first on this list. Plaintiff, however, was again rejected because she failed to meet the height requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [3179:3324] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.The Court’s focus must be on the first step in the employment process that produces an adverse impact on a group protected by Title VII, not the end result of the employment process as a whole.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [9397:9590] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.In light of Teal, we hold that when, as here, an employer uniformly applies a rule to male and female applicants and applies it in one round of hiring decisions to a pool of only female applicants; the rule must be job-related if in its regular application it has a disparate effect on women.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [12052:12344] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.We hold that plaintiff has established a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination by making an undisputed showing that New Bedford’s use of its height requirement excluded far more women than men from competing for positions as police officers.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [13875:14130] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1. |
| /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 | Job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity (§ 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i)) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / superseded basis: conceded; claim: (a)(2); party: defendant City of New Bedford officials; count: second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal; opinion: panel (Bownes); subject: party=defendant City of New Bedford officials; count=second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal; opinion=panel (Bownes) Employer never attempted a job-relatedness showing; the en banc court did not reach this step because no prima facie impact. | business-necessity/height-requirement | Since the city did not seek to justify its requirement by proving job-relatedness, plaintiff has proven a complete violation of Title VII.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [14131:14269] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1. |
| /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(2); party: plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list; subject: party=plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list | sex/female-police-applicant | In February, 1974, the city abandoned these separate job categories, and thereafter both men and women competed for positions as police officers. Women applicants were also required to meet the 5 feet 6 inches height requirement.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [35283:35512] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1. |
| /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 | Rejected "bottom-line" racial or gender balance defense to a discriminatory pass/fail barrier (Connecticut v. Teal) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / superseded basis: law; claim: (a)(2); party: defendant City of New Bedford officials; count: second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal; opinion: panel (Bownes); subject: party=defendant City of New Bedford officials; count=second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal; opinion=panel (Bownes) En banc majority reframed the same fact (women-only hiring) not as a defense but as negating the impact element itself. | bottom-line/only-protected-class-members-hired | The employer cannot point to the results of its process, but must justify use of the discriminatory element in that process.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [9876:10000] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.But this is no defense to a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination. It seeks to justify the disparate effect of the rule in general by pointing to the end results of one particular application of the rule.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [11769:11987] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
hypothetical
The Court’s focus must be on the first step in the employment process that produces an adverse impact on a group protected by Title VII, not the end result of the employment process as a whole.
/f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982
The Court’s focus must be on the first step in the employment process that produces an adverse impact on a group protected by Title VII, not the end result of the employment process as a whole.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [9397:9590] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.Prima facie disparate impact under Griggs and § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff identifies a specific employment practice that causes a significant disproportionate adverse impact on a protected group. RICCI_SCOPE: Ricci quotes in this block describe a hypothetical disparate-impact claim considered within the defense to intentional discrimination; they do not record adjudication of an actual subsection (k) claim against this employer.
hypothetical
In light of Teal, we hold that when, as here, an employer uniformly applies a rule to male and female applicants and applies it in one round of hiring decisions to a pool of only female applicants; the rule must be job-related if in its regular application it has a disparate effect on women.
/f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982
In light of Teal, we hold that when, as here, an employer uniformly applies a rule to male and female applicants and applies it in one round of hiring decisions to a pool of only female applicants; the rule must be job-related if in its regular application it has a disparate effect on women.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [12052:12344] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.Prima facie disparate impact under Griggs and § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff identifies a specific employment practice that causes a significant disproportionate adverse impact on a protected group. RICCI_SCOPE: Ricci quotes in this block describe a hypothetical disparate-impact claim considered within the defense to intentional discrimination; they do not record adjudication of an actual subsection (k) claim against this employer.
hypothetical
We remain unpersuaded that a hiring barrier can have a disparate impact on a protected group when competition for the job is only among members of that protected group.
/f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982
We remain unpersuaded that a hiring barrier can have a disparate impact on a protected group when competition for the job is only among members of that protected group.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [39478:39646] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.Prima facie disparate impact under Griggs and § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff identifies a specific employment practice that causes a significant disproportionate adverse impact on a protected group. RICCI_SCOPE: Ricci quotes in this block describe a hypothetical disparate-impact claim considered within the defense to intentional discrimination; they do not record adjudication of an actual subsection (k) claim against this employer.
interpretation
The employer cannot point to the results of its process, but must justify use of the discriminatory element in that process.
/f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982
The employer cannot point to the results of its process, but must justify use of the discriminatory element in that process.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [9876:10000] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.Rejected defense under Connecticut v. Teal (457 U.S. 440 (1982)) and Costa v. Markey: a favorable "bottom line" does not immunize an employer from justifying a specific pass/fail barrier that disproportionately excludes members of a protected group.