disparate impact claims

The three cases consolidated before the Supreme Court arose when employers fired long-time employees shortly after the employees revealed their homosexual or transgender status. Gerald Bostock worked for Clayton County, Georgia, as a child welfare advocate whose leadership earned the county national awards. After a decade with the county, Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league. Influential community members then made disparaging comments about his sexual orientation, and he was fired for conduct unbecoming a county employee. Donald Zarda worked as a skydiving instructor at Altitude Express in New York for several seasons. After mentioning that he was gay, he was fired days later. Aimee Stephens worked at R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan, presenting as male when hired. After two years she began treatment for gender dysphoria and wrote a letter stating she planned to live and work full-time as a woman. The funeral home fired her before she left for vacation. Each employee sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. The Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII does not prohibit employers from firing employees for being gay and dismissed Bostock's suit as a matter of law. The Second Circuit allowed Zarda's claim to proceed on the ground that sexual orientation discrimination violates Title VII. The Sixth Circuit reached the same conclusion in Stephens's case regarding transgender status. Both Zarda and Stephens passed away during the proceedings, but their estates continued to press the claims. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement among the courts of appeals over the scope of Title VII's protections for homosexual and transgender persons.

In 2003, the City of New Haven hired Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc. to develop and administer promotional examinations for lieutenant and captain positions in its fire department pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement that required a written component weighted at 60 percent and an oral component weighted at 40 percent. IOS performed job analyses that deliberately oversampled minority firefighters to avoid unintentional bias favoring white candidates. The examinations were administered in November and December 2003. Seventy-seven candidates completed the lieutenant examination. Forty-one candidates completed the captain examination. The results showed pass rates of 58.1 percent for white candidates, 31.6 percent for Hispanic candidates, and 31.6 percent for black candidates on the lieutenant exam. Pass rates on the captain exam were 64.3 percent for white candidates, 37.5 percent for Hispanic candidates, and 0 percent for black candidates. Under the rule of three, the top ten candidates eligible for lieutenant promotion were all white. The top nine candidates eligible for captain promotion were seven whites and two Hispanics. After the results were released, the City held five public hearings before its Civil Service Board between January and March 2004. At those hearings, IOS vice president Chad Legel described the test-development process. Testing consultant Christopher Hornick criticized the 60/40 weighting and recommended assessment centers. Retired fire captain Vincent Lewis reviewed the content. Boston College professor Janet Helms discussed possible cultural bias in the job-analysis questionnaires. City officials including corporation counsel Thomas Ude and human-resources director Tina Burgett urged non-certification on the ground that the statistical disparity would expose the City to liability. Several candidates who had passed the exams urged certification. The Board deadlocked 2-2 and declined to certify the results. Seventeen white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who had passed the examinations sued the City, Mayor John DeStefano, and other officials in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging violations of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in a per curiam opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In 2001, three current or former female employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.—Betty Dukes, Christine Kwapnoski, and Edith Arana—filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California alleging that the company had discriminated against them and other women in pay and promotions. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer with approximately 3,400 stores across the country and more than one million employees, delegated pay and promotion decisions to local store managers who exercised broad discretion in a largely subjective manner. The plaintiffs claimed that this discretion was exercised disproportionately in favor of men, resulting in lower pay and fewer promotions for female employees. They sought to represent a class of approximately 1.5 million current and former female employees who had worked at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store since December 26, 1998. To support their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs presented statistical evidence from experts Dr. Richard Drogin and Dr. Marc Bendick showing pay and promotion disparities between men and women, anecdotal evidence consisting of about 120 affidavits from female employees describing discriminatory experiences at only 235 of the company's 3,400 stores, and the testimony of sociologist Dr. William Bielby who analyzed Wal-Mart’s corporate culture. Betty Dukes began working at a Pittsburg, California store in 1994 as a cashier and was later promoted to customer service manager before being demoted; she alleged retaliation and that male greeters were paid more. Christine Kwapnoski worked at Sam’s Club stores and claimed a male manager yelled at female employees and told her to “doll up.” Edith Arana worked at a Duarte, California store from 1995 to 2001. She was denied opportunities for management training despite repeated requests. The District Court certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), finding that the plaintiffs had presented significant evidence of a company-wide pattern of discrimination. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, substantially affirmed the certification order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the class certification was consistent with Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).

Petitioners are a group of police and public safety officers employed by the city of Jackson, Mississippi. On October 1, 1998, the City adopted a pay plan granting raises to all City employees. The stated purpose of the plan was to attract and retain qualified people, provide incentive for performance, maintain competitiveness with other public sector agencies and ensure equitable compensation to all employees regardless of age, sex, race and/or disability. On May 1, 1999, a revision of the plan, motivated at least in part by the City's desire to bring the starting salaries of police officers up to the regional average, granted raises to all police officers and police dispatchers. Those who had less than five years of tenure received proportionately greater raises when compared to their former pay than those with more seniority. Although some officers over the age of 40 had less than five years of service, most of the older officers had more. Petitioners filed suit under the ADEA claiming both that the City deliberately discriminated against them because of their age and that they were adversely affected by the plan because of their age. The District Court granted summary judgment to the City on both claims. The Court of Appeals held that the ruling on the former claim was premature because petitioners were entitled to further discovery on the issue of intent, but it affirmed the dismissal of the disparate-impact claim. The Supreme Court granted the officers' petition for certiorari.