Jones v. City of Boston
752 F.3d 38
1st Cir.2014Background
- Ten black plaintiffs challenge Boston PD's hair-drug testing program used 1999–2006 for officers, cadets, and applicants.
- Data show black positives ~1.3% vs white ~0.3% across eight years, suggesting disparate impact under Title VII.
- plaintiffs contend hair tests yield false positives due to racial hair characteristics and melanin interactions.
- Program included medical review, safety-net tests, rehab option, and 45-day unpaid suspension before final termination.
- Procedural path began in state court, removed to federal court; district court granted summary judgment to PD on most claims.
- Court reverses on Title VII disparate impact claim and remands; other claims (due process, ADA, training) largely affirmed for district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the data show a statistically significant disparate impact? | Bristow/ plaintiffs show significant race-based disparity. | Agency disputes magnitude or independence; urges practical significance limits. | Yes; statistically significant disparity shown over eight years. |
| Is practical significance required to prove disparate impact? | Not required; statistical significance suffices for prima facie case. | Practical significance (four-fifths rule) needed to show impact is meaningful. | Practical significance not required; court rejects four-fifths rule as dispositive. |
| Did the department meet business necessity defense or offer a viable alternative? | Hair test lacks reliable correlation to drug use; alternative exists but not adopted. | Hair testing can be job-related and predictive; business necessity defense remains open. | Business necessity not resolved; court remands for district court to assess with full record. |
| Do due process and ADA claims fail as a matter of law? | Procedural deficiencies and misperceptions about addicts violated due process/ADA. | Pre-termination hearings and post-termination appeals satisfy due process; ADA claims lack showing of motive. | Due process satisfied; ADA claim rejected; other claims affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (U.S. 2009) (defines threshold for prima facie disparate impact and practical considerations)
- Fudge v. City of Providence Fire Dep't, 766 F.2d 650 (1st Cir. 1985) (rejects automatic reliance on four-fifths rule for small samples)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (U.S. 1988) (statistical significance framework for disparate impact analysis)
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1975) (two-part test for business necessity and validity of alternative practices)
- Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482 (U.S. 1977) (standard for assessing randomness of disparities via standard deviations)
- Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (pre-termination due process requirements for public employees)
- Mard v. Town of Amherst, 350 F.3d 184 (1st Cir. 2003) (limits of pre-termination process; post- deprivation remedies mitigate due process gaps)