Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 14088
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- Port Authority police officers (Asian Americans) sued under Title VII alleging three theories: individual disparate treatment, pattern-or-practice, and disparate impact.
- Eleven plaintiffs, across various tenures, alleged promotion denials to Sergeant; a nine-day trial produced a unanimous jury verdict for seven plaintiffs.
- District court awarded back pay, compensatory damages, and equitable relief (retroactive promotions, seniority, salary/pension adjustments).
- Port Authority challenged admission of pre-limitations evidence, sufficiency of evidence, and damages/relief premised on time-barred claims.
- District court and jury relied on continuing-violation theory to permit damages for acts outside the statute of limitations in disparate impact context; this was later reversed on appeal.
- Cross-appeals concerned the exclusion of Lundquist’s expert testimony and spoliation-related adverse inference request; those were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pattern-or-practice liability for private nonclass action | Chin/others rely on Teamsters to prove a pattern. | Port Authority argues pattern-practice not available to private nonclass actions. | Pattern-or-practice not available to private nonclass plaintiffs. |
| Continuing-violation applicability to disparate impact | Disparate impact premised on ongoing policy; damages outside limitations allowed. | Morgan/Lewis limit to discrete acts; continuing-violation not applicable. | Continuing-violation does not apply to disparate impact claims; damages limited to timely acts. |
| Admissibility of background evidence outside limitations | Background evidence may support timely claims. | Limitations require timely evidence primary. | Background evidence admissible to support timely claims. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for disparate claims | Evidence shows discrimination in promotion process. | Evidence insufficient for some theories. | Evidence sufficient for individual disparate treatment and disparate impact claims. |
| Damages and equitable relief premised on time-barred acts | Continuing-violation allowed back pay/compensatory relief pre-2000. | Time-barred acts cannot support damages; remittitur/new trial needed. | Back pay, compensatory damages, and certain equitable relief vacated; new damages trial remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1977) (establishes pattern-or-practice method for government actions under § 2000e-6)
- Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., 424 U.S. 747 (U.S. 1976) (pattern-or-practice framework derived from class-action context)
- Morgan v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts not actionable when time-barred; hostile environment distinction)
- Lewis v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 2191 (S. Ct. 2010) (disparate impact requires challenge to a specific employment practice within limitations period)
- Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1986) (pre-Act discrimination evidence probative for post-Act disparities)