Lewis v. City of Chicago
Headline: Ruling lets applicants sue over an employer’s repeated use of a disputed hiring cutoff, holding continued application of an earlier test can be challenged as a timely disparate-impact claim affecting job seekers.
Holding: In a unanimous opinion, the Court held that a person who did not timely challenge an employer’s adoption of a hiring practice may still bring a timely disparate-impact claim against the employer’s later use of that practice, if all claim elements are alleged.
- Allows lawsuits challenging continued use of past hiring practices causing racial disparities.
- Means employers risk new liability when they repeatedly apply old selection rules.
- May require employers to preserve evidence about long-standing hiring decisions.
Summary
Background
In 1995 the City of Chicago gave a firefighter exam and set score bands: “well qualified” (89+), “qualified” (65–88), and failing. The City repeatedly filled new hiring classes by drawing from the 89+ group, leaving many African-American applicants in the 65–88 range who were not hired. Several of those applicants filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1997 and later sued, claiming the City’s practice caused a racial disparate impact. A federal trial court sided with the applicants, but the Seventh Circuit said the lawsuit was untimely because the only discriminatory act occurred when the City first sorted scores in 1996.
Reasoning
The Court said the legal question is what exact “employment practice” is being complained of. It found that Title VII allows a disparate-impact claim against an employer that “uses” a particular hiring practice that causes a racial disparity. The Court explained that each later use of the 1995 cutoff in filling new classes was itself an actionable use of the practice, not merely a lingering effect of the original decision. The Court distinguished claims that require proof of intentional discrimination, which must occur within the filing period, from disparate-impact claims that challenge practices regardless of intent. Because the later applications fell within the charging period, the applicants’ claim can proceed.
Real world impact
The decision means people can challenge an employer’s ongoing use of an old hiring rule even if they did not challenge the original adoption. The Seventh Circuit must reconsider relief tied to the very first hiring round that occurred outside the filing window. Employers and applicants should expect more timely suits tied to each use of long-standing hiring practices.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?