975 F.3d 202
2d Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiffs George Mandala and Charles Barnett, both African American, received employment offers from NTT Data for developer roles that were rescinded after background checks revealed prior felony convictions.
- Plaintiffs sued under Title VII alleging disparate impact, asserting NTT’s policy of excluding applicants with certain convictions disproportionately excludes African Americans.
- Plaintiffs relied on national arrest/incarceration statistics and studies (FBI, DOJ, EEOC, academic work) to show racial disparities in criminal records.
- The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the national statistics inadequate to show those disparities exist within the pool of qualified applicants for the skilled technical jobs at issue; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- The Second Circuit (majority) affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that national statistics represent NTT’s qualified applicant pool; Judge Chin dissented, arguing the statistics and other allegations suffice at the pleading stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether national arrest/incarceration statistics can, without more, support a disparate-impact claim challenging NTT's criminal-conviction hiring policy | Mandala/Barnett: national statistics showing higher arrest/incarceration rates for African Americans are probative of disparate impact and suffice at pleading stage | NTT: national statistics are not probative because they do not reflect the composition of the qualified applicant pool for skilled developer positions | Held: No — plaintiffs must allege why national statistics plausibly reflect the relevant qualified applicant pool; here plaintiffs failed to do so and national stats alone were insufficient |
| Proper pleading standard for disparate-impact claims (prima facie vs plausibility/minimal support) | Plaintiffs: Iqbal/Swierkiewicz allow notice pleading; basic statistical allegations can nudge claim to plausible | NTT: plaintiffs must plausibly allege disparity and causal link to the specific applicant pool (i.e., more than conclusory national stats) | Held: Use the Iqbal plausibility standard; plaintiffs must plead sufficient nonconclusory factual matter to plausibly support each element (identify policy, show disparity, show causal link). National stats may be used but only if plausibly representative of the qualified pool |
| Whether district court should retain supplemental state-law claims after federal claims dismissed | Plaintiffs: state claims arise from same facts and could proceed | NTT: dismissal of federal claim warrants dismissal of state claims | Held: District court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing the sole federal claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) (establishing disparate-impact theory under Title VII)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) (discussing proof and defenses in Title VII contexts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: factual allegations must plausibly state a claim)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (prima facie evidentiary standards are not pleading requirements)
- Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) (discussing appropriate statistical comparisons and when general-population stats may be used)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988) (role of statistics and causation in disparate-impact analysis)
- Malave v. Potter, 320 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 2003) (permitting substitute statistics when exact applicant-pool data are unavailable)
- Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) (prima facie elements for disparate-impact claim)
- Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) (allowing general-population statistics in certain contexts)
- Littlejohn v. City of N.Y., 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (pleading standards in employment-discrimination cases)