DEFENSE · 42usc2000e-2:x-bottom-line
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.
Exact element source
a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impactSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [8628:8691] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| bottom-line-balance | Rejected defense that overall ("bottom-line") hiring numbers excuse a discriminatory pass/fail barrier within the selection process | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| bottom-line/only-protected-class-members-hired | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 — applied/superseded |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /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balance defense to a discriminatory pass/fail barrier (Connecticut v. Teal) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / superseded basis: law; claim: (a)(2); party: defendant City of New Bedford officials; count: second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal;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
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.