Lewis v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILL.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9755
7th Cir.2011Background
- In 1995 Chicago Fire Department applicants were ranked by a written exam with a cutoff of 89 for well-qualified and 64 for not qualified; those in between were deemed qualified but unlikely to be hired.
- From 1996 to 2001 Chicago hired 11 groups from the well-qualified pool, selecting at random from that pool rather than hiring in rank order from a list.
- In 1997 a charge of discrimination alleging disparate impact of the 89 cutoff was filed with the EEOC; it was the first of several charges that led to a class action in 1998.
- District court held the March 1997 charge timely despite it being more than 300 days after notification of the cutoff and after learning of hiring unlikely outcomes for the qualified pool.
- District court rejected Chicago’s business-necessity defense; relief included hiring 132 class members and damages on a loss-of-a-chance theory.
- Seventh Circuit initially held the March 1997 charge untimely for the first hiring class; Supreme Court later reversed on remand, holding timing starts anew with each use of a test in disparate-impact cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of charge for first hiring class | Lewis argues first-charge timely for first batch. | Chicago contends charge untimely for first batch. | Remanded; first-batch untimeliness affirmed as to relief. |
| Disparate impact for each use of the cutoff | All uses from the well-qualified pool have consistent impact. | Some uses may differ in impact; challenge must be proven for each use. | Each use analyzed separately; burden shown for all uses—not defeated. |
| Remedy modification on first batch | Relief based on first batch appropriate. | Relief tied to first batch should be limited. | Remand to modify remedy to exclude May 1996 hires. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) (disparate-impact analysis focuses on justified use, not abstract lawfulness)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (require separate analysis for each 'unlawful employment practice' under Title VII)
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007) (present-effects concept differs for disparate-impact claims)
- Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 490 U.S. 900 (1989) (timing and present-violation principles clarified for non-intent claims)
- United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553 (1977) (timeliness depends on claim type; disparate-impact uses are distinct)