AND · 42usc2000e-2:impact.alternative
Plaintiff's surrebuttal under § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii): even if a practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity, liability attaches if the employer refuses to adopt a less discriminatory alternative. 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.
Exact element source
the complaining party makes the demonstration described in subparagraph (C) with respect to an alternative employment practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [8916:9116] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| alternative-practice/reweighting-banding-assessment-center | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — applied/hypothetical | |
| less-discriminatory-alternative | Available alternative employment practice with less disparate impact that serves the employer's legitimate needs and that the employer refuses to adopt | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Less discriminatory alternative employment practice that the employer refuses to adopt (§ 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii)) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / hypothetical basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1),(k),(l),(h),(j); party: non-party minority candidates who would have held a disparate-impact claim against the City had the results been certified; defendant City of New Haven and the officials who opposed certification (respondents); count: (k) disparate-impact claim that would have followed certification; never brought; theory: strong-basis-in-evidence inquiry inside defense x-disparate-impact-compliance: would the City have been liable on impact-suit (step 1 = impact, step 2 = impact.business-necessity, step 3 = impact.alternative); subject: party=non-party minority candidates who would have held a disparate-impact claim against the City had the results been certified; defendant City of New Haven and the officials who opposed certification (respondents); count=(k) disparate-impact claim that would have followed certification; never brought; theory=strong-basis-in-evidence inquiry inside defense x-disparate-impact-compliance: would the City have been liable on impact-suit (step 1 = impact, step 2 = impact.business-necessity, step 3 = impact.alternative) | alternative-practice/reweighting-banding-assessment-center | But respondents have produced no evidence to show that the 60/40 weighting was indeed arbitrary.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [55121:55217] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.Had the City reviewed the exam results and then adopted banding to make the minority test scores appear higher, it would have violated Title VIPs prohibition of adjusting test results on the basis of race.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [57209:57414] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.But Hornick’s brief mention of alternative testing methods, standing alone, does not raise a genuine issue of material fact that assessment centers were available to the City at the time of the examinations and that they would have produced less adverse impact.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [58152:58413] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.Even if the employer meets that burden, however, a plaintiff may still succeed by showing that the employer refuses to adopt an available alternative employment practice that has less disparate impact and serves the employer’s legitimate needs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [32904:33148] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.Respondents also lacked a strong basis in evidence of an equally valid, less discriminatory testing alternative that the City, by certifying the examination results, would necessarily have refused to adopt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [54425:54631] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557. |
Court interpretations
hypothetical
Even if the employer meets that burden, however, a plaintiff may still succeed by showing that the employer refuses to adopt an available alternative employment practice that has less disparate impact and serves the employer’s legitimate needs.
/us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
Even if the employer meets that burden, however, a plaintiff may still succeed by showing that the employer refuses to adopt an available alternative employment practice that has less disparate impact and serves the employer’s legitimate needs.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [32904:33148] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.Plaintiff's surrebuttal under § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii): even if a practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity, liability attaches if the employer refuses to adopt a less discriminatory alternative. 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.