Title VII Prima Facie Cases: Volume 1
7 views
Get This Book
Prices may vary. Links may earn us a commission and open external websites.
Publisher
Independently published
ISBN
ISBN-13: 9798360026679Synopsis
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss the elements of Title VII prima facie cases. Volume 1 of the casebook covers the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
* * *
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended, prevents employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. As originally enacted, "Title VII's principal nondiscrimination provision held employers liable only for" intentional discrimination (known as "disparate treatment"). Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 577, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009). But in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court construed the statute to prohibit "not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation" — that is, practices that have a "disparate impact." 401 U.S. 424, 431, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). Griggs thus read Title VII to focus on "the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation" behind them.[2] Id. at 432, 91 S.Ct. 849; see also M.O.C.H.A. Soc'y, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, 689 F.3d 263, 273 (2d Cir. 2012); Gulino v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep't, 460 F.3d 361, 382 (2d Cir. 2006).
Pursuing a disparate impact claim is often a complicated endeavor. Such claims "follow a three-part analysis involving shifting evidentiary burdens." Gulino, 460 F.3d at 382 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)). The plaintiff "bears the initial burden of [making] a prima facie showing of disparate impact." Id. This requires the plaintiff to "(1) identify a specific employment practice or policy; (2) demonstrate that a disparity exists; and (3) establish a causal relationship between the two." Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Unlike a disparate treatment claim, however, a disparate impact claim does not require the plaintiff to show that the defendant intended to discriminate against a particular group. See Ricci, 557 U.S. at 577-78, 129 S.Ct. 2658; M.O.C.H.A., 689 F.3d at 273; see also Chaidez v. Ford Motor Co., 937 F.3d 998, 1006-07 (7th Cir. 2019).
Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc., 975 F. 3d 202 (2nd Cir. 2020)
* * *
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended, prevents employers from discriminating against employees or job applicants based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. As originally enacted, "Title VII's principal nondiscrimination provision held employers liable only for" intentional discrimination (known as "disparate treatment"). Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 577, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009). But in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court construed the statute to prohibit "not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation" — that is, practices that have a "disparate impact." 401 U.S. 424, 431, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). Griggs thus read Title VII to focus on "the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation" behind them.[2] Id. at 432, 91 S.Ct. 849; see also M.O.C.H.A. Soc'y, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, 689 F.3d 263, 273 (2d Cir. 2012); Gulino v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep't, 460 F.3d 361, 382 (2d Cir. 2006).
Pursuing a disparate impact claim is often a complicated endeavor. Such claims "follow a three-part analysis involving shifting evidentiary burdens." Gulino, 460 F.3d at 382 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)). The plaintiff "bears the initial burden of [making] a prima facie showing of disparate impact." Id. This requires the plaintiff to "(1) identify a specific employment practice or policy; (2) demonstrate that a disparity exists; and (3) establish a causal relationship between the two." Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135, 151 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Unlike a disparate treatment claim, however, a disparate impact claim does not require the plaintiff to show that the defendant intended to discriminate against a particular group. See Ricci, 557 U.S. at 577-78, 129 S.Ct. 2658; M.O.C.H.A., 689 F.3d at 273; see also Chaidez v. Ford Motor Co., 937 F.3d 998, 1006-07 (7th Cir. 2019).
Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc., 975 F. 3d 202 (2nd Cir. 2020)
Dimensions
229 mm × 31 mm × 152 mm
898 g
