Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. June 9, 1999)

Keywords: Title VII, Equal Protection Clause and Civil Rights Act of 1991 (entrance exams)

Introduction: Sixty-eight white and Latino applicants, both male and female, brought suit against Nassau County because they took a police officer's entrance exam that had been designed to minimize any adverse impact on minority candidates. The district court dismissed the lawsuit. The Second Circuit affirms.

Facts: In 1977, the Department of Justice (DoJ) sued Nassau County based on alleged discrimination in the hiring practices of the police department. By 1994, Nassau County and DoJ had joined forces to develop an entrance exam that would minimize any adverse impact on minority applicants. The plaintiffs in this case took the 1994 exam.

Law:

1. Equal Protection Clause
   1. Intentional discrimination by a government actor can be demonstrated in several ways:
      1. A law or policy is discriminatory on its face if it expressly classifies persons on the basis of race or gender.
      2. A law which is facially neutral violates equal protection if it is applied in a discriminatory fashion.
      3. A facially neutral statute violates equal protection if it was motivated by discriminatory animus and its application results in a discriminatory effect.
   2. The plaintiffs' equal protection claim fails because there was no discriminatory intent. Furthermore, the plaintiffs even conceded that as a group, they scored higher than the black applicants. So there was no discriminatory impact.
2. Title VII
   1. The plaintiffs' claims of discriminatory treatment and discriminatory impact fail for the same reasons set forth above. Discriminatory treatment requires discriminatory intent. And there was no disparate impact.
3. Civil Rights Act of 1991
   1. The plaintiffs allege that Section 106 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(l))was violated. This section prohibits employers from adjusting scores, using different scores, or otherwise altering the results of employment related tests on the basis of race, color, gender or religion. But the 1994 exam was scored the same for all applicants, so Section 106 does not apply.
   2. The plaintiffs also allege that Section 107 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-2(m)) was violated but that section deals with mixed motive cases which does not apply here.
4. Therefore, the Second Circuit affirms.
5. Click here to see actual case.