907 F. Supp. 2d 492
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- African-American and Latino NYC public school teachers sued the Board and SED for Title VII discrimination based on licensing exams (Core Battery and LAST) and related pay/seniority consequences.
- Class was certified in 2001; subsequent proceedings led to remand and reexamination of LAST validation and Board liability on remand.
- Judge Motley held Core Battery validated; LAST not validated under Guardians but found job-related under Watson; Second Circuit later remanded to reassess LAST validity with Guardians standards.
- On remand, the court granted in part the Board’s motion to decertify the class; class remains for declaratory relief and a monitor remedy related to the LAST, but monetary/backpay relief is bifurcated.
- The court concluded the LAST was not properly validated and thus violated Title VII when required for permanent licensing; the Board’s use of Core Battery to demote/reduce pay of experienced teachers was not a Title VII violation.
- Interlocutory appeal was certified on whether compliance with a facially neutral state licensing requirement may impose Title VII liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class should be decertified post-Wal-Mart | Gulino contends classwide relief remains viable for liability and a monitor. | Board argues Wal-Mart requires decertification of monetary and individualized injunctive claims. | Partial decertification; liability/monitor relief retained, remedies severed to later phase. |
| Whether the LAST is subject to Title VII liability against the Board as employer/licensor | LAST used discriminatorily against experienced teachers; Board liable as employer. | LAST is a licensing exam; Board argues business-necessity and state-law compliance shield it. | Board liable; LAST may be challenged under Title VII despite licensing role. |
| Whether LAST was properly validated under Guardians/Simultaneous standard | LAST lacked a suitable job analysis and validation evidence for teaching tasks. | LAST validated via standard procedures and expert input. | LAST was not properly validated; not job related. |
| Whether the Board misused the LAST/Core Battery in employment decisions | Misuse by applying LAST/Core Battery to experienced teachers and affecting compensation. | Core Battery validated for its intended licensing purpose; no misuse in employment decisions. | LAST misuse found not applicable (LAST already not properly validated); Core Battery not misused. |
| Whether equitable relief (monitor, declaratory relief) is warranted for Title VII remedy | Seek monitor to ensure current LAST avoids discriminatory provisions; seek class-wide declaratory relief. | Monitor and relief potentially inappropriate or overbroad. | Monitor relief upheld as necessary to provide complete relief; declaratory relief granted; other remedies aligned with liability finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulino v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of N.Y., 460 F.3d 361 (2d Cir. 2006) (Title VII liability for licensing-related testing and validation standards)
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1975) (validation standard for employment tests; job relatedness)
- Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Service Comm’n of N.Y., 630 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1980) (five-part Guardians test for validation of employment tests)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1988) (manifest relation to employment goals as a test for job relatedness (alternative standard))
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (limits Rule 23(b)(2) to classwide injunctive/declaratory relief; monetary claims require (b)(3))
- Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001) (bifurcation of liability and damages under Rule 23)