Claude Grant v. Metropolitan Gov't of Nashville
446 F. App'x 737
6th Cir.2011Background
- Nine named plaintiffs sue Metro Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, Metro Water Services under Title VII on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees.
- Plaintiffs allege systemic racial discrimination against black employees in post-hiring opportunities, including promotions, pay, and other terms and conditions.
- Plaintiffs rely on disparate treatment and disparate impact theories; district court held prima facie disparate impact established and granted back pay via a Special Master and injunctive relief on promotions.
- Metro appealed, challenging the liability ruling and the injunctive-relief structure, including the Special Master appointment.
- The district court appointed Dr. Kathleen Lundquist as Special Master; Metro sought revision under Rule 53, which the court denied.
- The appellate panel reverses, holding plaintiffs failed to prove a prima facie disparate impact case; the case is remanded/dismissed as moot regarding the Special Master appointment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did plaintiffs identify and isolate specific employment practices? | Plaintiffs identified several discriminatory practices (tailoring qualifications, selective interviewing, etc.). | Plaintiffs failed to isolate practices or prove indivisible elements; must identify specific practices. | No; district court erred in failure to require separation analysis. |
| Was there a demonstrable adverse impact with proper statistical data? | Dr. Moomaw's analysis showed widespread disparities in promotions for blacks. | Statistical data were inadequately tied to actual promotion outcomes and qualified pools. | No; plaintiffs failed to present proper statistical evidence showing adverse impact. |
| Can the promotions process be analyzed as a single practice when elements may be separable? | District court could consider the process as one practice due to inseparability of elements. | Elements are separable; must assess individual practices. | No; the court erred in treating the process as inseparable for analysis. |
| Does substantial record support a prima facie disparate impact under the governing standard? | Non-statistical evidence and expert testimony corroborate impact. | Evidence insufficient under controlling standards for statistically significant impact. | No; record does not sustain prima facie showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Watson v. Ft. Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1988) (requires isolating specific employment practices for disparate impact analysis)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (emphasizes subjective decisionmaking can affect discrimination outcomes)
- Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (U.S. 1989) (statistical evidence standards and generally qualified applicant pool)
- Phillips v. Cohen, 400 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2005) (statistical evidence methods in disparate impact cases)
- Dunlap v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 519 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2008) (standard for prima facie disparate impact)
- Phillips v. Gates, 329 Fed.Appx. 577 (6th Cir. 2009) (illustrates approach to statistical and non-statistical evidence)