AND · 42usc2000e-2:impact.business-necessity
Employer's rebuttal burden under § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). Under § 2000e-2(k)(2), business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination. 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 respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessitySource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [8759:8906] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.A demonstration that an employment practice is required by business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination under this subchapter.Source:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [10024:10199] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| business-necessity/height-requirement | 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Excluded context examples: /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 — applied/superseded | |
| business-necessity/job-related-exam-professionally-developed-from-job-analysis | 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 | |
| job-related-necessity | Demonstration that the challenged practice is job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /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in question and consistent with business necessity (§ 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i)) | not Excluded from merits counts applied / superseded basis: conceded; claim: (a)(2); party: defendant City of New Bedford officials; count: second rejection, from the women-only list; the only count on appeal;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. |
| /us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity (§ 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i)) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / hypothetical basis: law; 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) "satisfied" = the employer's business-necessity showing would have succeeded, which is why the defense to the treatment claim FAILS. The missing validation report is the one gap in the showing; the Court charges it to the City, which never asked for it. | business-necessity/job-related-exam-professionally-developed-from-job-analysis | In order to fit the examinations to the New Haven Department, IOS began the test-design process by performing job analyses to identify the tasks, knowledge, skills, and abilities that are essential for the lieutenant and captain positions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [5283:5522] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.IOS devised the written examinations, which were the focus of the CSB’s inquiry, after painstaking analyses of the captain and lieutenant positions — analyses in which IOS made sure that minorities were overrepresented.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [51919:52138] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.Although the City’s contract with IOS contemplated that IOS would prepare a technical report consistent with EEOC guidelines for examination-validity studies, the City made no request for its report.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [53796:53995] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.An employer may defend against liability by demonstrating that the practice is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [32736:32897] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.There is no genuine dispute that the examinations were job related and consistent with business necessity.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [51534:51640] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557. |
Court interpretations
hypothetical
An employer may defend against liability by demonstrating that the practice is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”
/us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009
An employer may defend against liability by demonstrating that the practice is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [32736:32897] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.Employer's rebuttal burden under § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). Under § 2000e-2(k)(2), business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination. 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.