Guerrero v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
701 F. App'x 613
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Guerrero challenged CDCR’s use of a screening question that led to withholding applications; all applicants whose applications were withheld on that basis were Latino.
- District court credited plaintiff’s statistical expert that expected adverse effect on Latinos was 42.1% and found the question was the deciding factor for at least two of seven relevant applicants.
- CDCR argued it conducts individualized assessments and interviews all applicants and that the question was an important screening tool; district court found CDCR’s individualized review was largely pretextual.
- CDCR also argued its overall hiring record for Latinos defeated disparate-impact liability; district court rejected this “bottom-line” defense.
- The district court denied CDCR additional discovery into after-acquired evidence; it allowed completion of an unfinished background check.
- District court entered judgment against CDCR and the California State Personnel Board; on appeal the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated the attorney-fee award for recalculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CDCR’s screening question created a disparate impact | Guerrero: statistical evidence showed a disparate impact under EEOC four-fifths rule | CDCR: no disparate impact; overall hiring of Latinos is strong | Held: Prima facie disparate-impact established; district court not clearly erroneous |
| Whether CDCR may assert a business-necessity defense | Guerrero: CDCR did not show a significant relation between the question and job performance | CDCR: question was a legitimate, job-related screening device and individualized review occurred | Held: District court’s factual findings that CDCR’s individualized assessments were pretextual supported rejection of defense |
| Whether a strong overall hiring “bottom line” defeats disparate-impact claim | Guerrero: intermediate screening barriers can violate Title VII regardless of final demographics | CDCR: good overall Latino hiring record absolves liability | Held: Rejected — Teal and Ninth Circuit precedent bar the bottom-line defense |
| Whether Personnel Board is liable under third-party disparate-impact theory | Guerrero: Personnel Board’s administrative review implicated it in the adverse action | Personnel Board: only acted adjudicatively and did not participate in hiring or create the question | Held: Reversed — Personnel Board did not discriminate or interfere and cannot be liable here |
Key Cases Cited
- Paige v. California, 291 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir.) (deference to district court findings on disparate-impact statistical evidence)
- Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Cmtys. Project, 135 S. Ct. 2507 (2015) (business necessity requires significant relation to job performance)
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (employment criteria must bear manifest relationship to job)
- Contreras v. City of L.A., 656 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir.) (business necessity standard explanation)
- Craig v. Cty. of L.A., 626 F.2d 659 (9th Cir.) (business necessity discussion)
- Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982) (rejecting bottom-line defense to disparate-impact claims)
- Stout v. Potter, 276 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir.) (intermediate screening stage liability under Teal)
- McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co., 513 U.S. 352 (after-acquired evidence standard)
- Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.) (district court’s broad discretion over discovery)
- Ass’n of Mex.-Am. Educators v. California, 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir.) (third-party/state entanglement and Title VII liability)
- Anderson v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 336 F.3d 924 (9th Cir.) (requirement that third party discriminated and interfered with employment relationship)