Introduction

Lewis et al. v. City of Chicago, Illinois, 560 U.S. 205 (2010) is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court addressing the nuances of disparate-impact claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case revolves around the City of Chicago's hiring practices for firefighter positions, wherein the city utilized a cutoff score on a written examination to classify applicants as "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified." African-American applicants who scored within the "qualified" range alleged that the city's use of this cutoff had a disparate impact on them, leading to their exclusion from employment opportunities.

The key issue at hand was whether plaintiffs who failed to file a timely charge challenging the adoption of the discriminatory practice could still assert a disparate-impact claim based on the employer's later application of that same practice.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a discriminatory practice may still assert a disparate-impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer's subsequent application of that practice. This decision reversed the Seventh Circuit's earlier ruling, which deemed the plaintiffs' claims untimely because the resultant hiring decisions were seen as automatic consequences of the initial discriminatory act.

The Court emphasized that disparate-impact claims do not require plaintiffs to demonstrate discriminatory intent, distinguishing them from disparate-treatment claims. As such, the continued use of the discriminatory practice posed fresh violations of Title VII, allowing plaintiffs to bring timely claims against each instance of its application.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several key precedents to shape its reasoning:

• DELAWARE STATE COLLEGE v. RICKS, 449 U.S. 250 (1980): Established the necessity of identifying the precise unlawful employment practice to determine the timeliness of an EEOC charge.
• GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER CO., 401 U.S. 424 (1971): Interpreted Title VII to prohibit not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation.
• UNITED AIR LINES, INC. v. EVANS, 431 U.S. 553 (1977): Addressed the accrual of disparate-impact claims, emphasizing that present violations within the limitations period could give rise to claims even if past discriminatory acts were not timely challenged.
• LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR TIRE Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007) and Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 490 U.S. 900 (1989): Highlighted distinctions between disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims, particularly regarding the need for demonstrating discriminatory intent.
• Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747 (1976): Established that class-wide relief can be awarded to unnamed class members who have not individually filed EEOC charges.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on the interpretation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i), which codified the disparate-impact theory recognized in GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER CO.. The Court reasoned that the use of an employment practice that causes a disparate impact falls within the scope of an actionable claim under Title VII, regardless of when the practice was adopted, provided that the practice is actively causing harm during the period in question.

Importantly, the Court distinguished disparate-impact claims from disparate-treatment claims. While the latter require proof of discriminatory intent within the limitations period, disparate-impact claims do not necessitate such intent and are solely based on the effect of the employment practice. Therefore, each application of the discriminatory practice constituted a fresh violation, thereby allowing plaintiffs to file timely charges for each instance.

Impact

The decision in Lewis v. City of Chicago has significant implications for both employers and employees:

• For Employers: Employers must be vigilant in reviewing and continuously assessing their employment practices to ensure they do not inadvertently cause disparate impacts. Failure to do so could result in multiple, separately actionable claims over time.
• For Employees: Plaintiffs have more avenues to seek redress for discriminatory practices, even if initial discriminatory acts were not timely challenged. This enhances the protection of employees against systemic discrimination.
• Legal Landscape: The decision clarifies the application of disparate-impact theory in the context of EEOC charge timeliness, potentially leading to an increase in disparate-impact litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Disparate Impact vs. Disparate Treatment

Disparate Impact: Refers to policies or practices that are neutral on their face but disproportionately affect a protected group under Title VII. Plaintiffs do not need to prove intent to discriminate, only that the practice causes a significant adverse effect on a protected class.

Disparate Treatment: Involves intentional discrimination where plaintiffs must demonstrate that the employer deliberately treated individuals differently based on a protected characteristic.

EEOC Charge Timeliness

Under Title VII, individuals must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. The question in this case was whether subsequent applications of a discriminatory practice could constitute new actionable acts, thereby allowing a later-timed EEOC charge.

Prima Facie Case

A prima facie case is the initial presentation of evidence. In disparate-impact claims, establishing a prima facie case involves demonstrating that an employment practice exists, it causes a disparate impact on a protected group, and there is a lack of business necessity for the practice.

Conclusion

Lewis v. City of Chicago significantly broadens the scope for disparate-impact claims under Title VII by allowing plaintiffs to challenge not just the adoption of discriminatory practices, but also their continued application over time. This ensures that employers remain accountable for the ongoing effects of their employment policies, reinforcing the protective intent of the Civil Rights Act. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining vigilance against systemic discrimination, thereby fostering a more equitable workplace environment.