Connecticut v. Teal

1982-06-21

Headline: Rejecting a "bottom-line" defense, Court allows employees denied promotion by a racially disparate, non-job-related test to challenge the employer even if overall promotions favored their group.

Holding: The Court held that employers cannot rely on a favorable overall 'bottom-line' promotion result to defeat a Title VII claim when a non‑job‑related pass‑fail test disproportionately bars individual minority employees from promotion.

Real World Impact:

Allows individuals barred by discriminatory tests to sue despite a favorable overall promotion outcome.
Requires employers to prove pass‑fail exams are job‑related or risk Title VII liability.
Affects how public employers design and justify promotion and selection procedures.

Topics: promotion tests, employment discrimination, workplace civil rights, employer testing practices

Summary

Background

Four Black employees of a state welfare agency served as provisional supervisors but had to pass a written exam to win permanent promotion. The exam, given to 329 candidates on December 2, 1978, produced passing rates of 54.17% for identified Black candidates and 79.54% for identified white candidates. The four plaintiffs failed the test and sued under Title VII, alleging the test excluded Black applicants in disproportionate numbers and was not job related. About one month before trial the State made promotions from the test list, promoting 46 people (11 Black, 35 white), producing overall promotion rates of about 22.9% for Black candidates and 13.5% for white candidates.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether an employer may use a favorable overall or "bottom-line" outcome to avoid liability when a pass‑fail component of the selection process disproportionately excludes minorities. The Court held that a pass‑fail barrier that has a disparate impact on individuals falls within § 703(a)(2) of Title VII and requires the employer to prove the test is job related. Section 703(h) does not shield a non‑job‑related test simply because the employer later achieved a racially balanced or favorable overall result. The Court affirmed the Second Circuit and rejected using the bottom line as a defense to an individual disparate‑impact claim.

Real world impact

The decision means workers who were blocked by a non‑job‑related test can pursue Title VII claims even if overall hiring or promotion numbers look balanced. Employers, including state and local agencies, must be prepared to justify pass‑fail tests as job related. The case was remanded for further proceedings on those issues and is not a final finding on whether the specific test was job related.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the ruling blurs the line between group‑level disparate impact and individual claims, urged attention to the total process or "bottom line," and warned of practical costs and possible unintended consequences for employers.