Four cases build the disparate-impact side of Title VII and the proof structure for individual treatment claims. Each is tested on what it added, so learn the one move each case makes.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)
Title VII proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity, and Congress placed on the employer the burden of showing a manifest relationship between the requirement and the job. No discriminatory intent is required.
Griggs went expressly beyond the disparate-treatment theory. It created no safe harbor for neutral-looking tests, and comparator evidence is treatment proof, not impact proof.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973)
A three-step framework for individual disparate treatment:
- The plaintiff's prima facie case: protected class; applied and qualified for an open job; rejected despite qualifications; the position remained open and the employer kept seeking similarly qualified applicants.
- The employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason - a burden of production, not persuasion.
- The plaintiff gets a fair opportunity to show the reason was pretext. Do not skip the middle step or import statistical impact proof into an individual case.
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975)
Tests producing a disparate impact must be validated by professionally acceptable methods showing they are predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior relevant to the job, with great deference to the EEOC Guidelines. Even after job-relatedness is shown, the complaining party may still prevail by showing another selection device without similar racial effect would serve the employer's legitimate interest. No vendor safe harbor, no size threshold.
Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)
An employer may take race-conscious action to avoid disparate-impact liability only if it has a strong basis in evidence that it would otherwise be liable. New Haven had none that the exam was deficient, so discarding the results violated Title VII's disparate-treatment prohibition. Ricci does not bar impact analysis, and outside validation is not the trigger.