Lanning v. SEPTA - 181 F.3d 478 (3d Cir. 1999)

Rule:

Under Title VII's disparate impact theory of liability, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of disparate impact by demonstrating that application of a facially neutral standard has resulted in a significantly discriminatory hiring pattern. Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to an employer to show that the employment practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity. 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2k. Should the employer meet this burden, a plaintiff may still prevail if he can show that an alternative employment practice has a less disparate impact and would also serve the employer's legitimate business interest.

Facts:

Appellee, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA"), has employed the 1.5 mile run as an applicant screening test. In conjunction with the implementation of its physical fitness screening test, SEPTA also began testing incumbent officers for aerobic capacity in 1991. On January 29, 1997, after satisfying all administrative prerequisites, appellants, five women who failed SEPTA's 1.5-mile run brought a Title VII class action against SEPTA on behalf of all 1993 female applicants, 1996 female applicants and future female applicants for employment as SEPTA police officers who have been or will be denied employment by reason of their inability to meet the physical entrance requirement of running 1.5 miles in 12 minutes or less. The district court held that the test was not discriminatory under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 105 Stat. 1071 (1992) because of appellee's business necessity. On appeal, the appellants asserted that the District Court applied incorrect legal standards in evaluating SEPTA's business necessity defense and that the District Court made erroneous findings of fact in determining that SEPTA's 1.5-mile run did not violate Title VII.

Issue:

Did the district court arrive at the correct conclusion using the correct legal standard? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The appellate court held that the trial court applied the incorrect business justification legal standard and remanded. It was not shown that the discriminatory cutoff score used by appellee measured the minimum qualifications necessary for successful job performance. Appellants established that the facially neutral fitness standard resulted in a discriminatory hiring pattern but appellee failed to show that the requirement was job related and a business necessity. Expert judgment alone was insufficient to validate appellee's discriminatory practice.