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.

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

Association of Mexican-American Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. October 30, 2000)

Keywords: Title VII (race discrimination; interference with employment relationship; disparate impact)

Introduction/Facts: Plaintiffs are a class of Mexican-American, Asian-American and African-American educators and would-be educators in California. They brought suit against the State of California and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing alleging that the California Basic Education Skills Test (CBEST) -- which is a prerequisite to employment in a variety of positions in the California public schools -- has a disparate impact on minority applicants.

On appeal, these plaintiffs challenge the district court's finding that the CBEST violates neither Title VI nor Title VII. They also challenge the district court's use of a technical advisor at trial.

The defendants also appeal. They challenge the district court's finding that Title VI and Title VII apply in this case. They also appeal from the district court's order denying costs.

The Ninth Circuit, en banc, affirms.

Law:

1. Does Title VII apply to the CBEST?
   1. The plaintiffs and the defendants do not have a direct employment relationship. The plaintiffs are employees or potential employees of individual school districts in California.
   2. But the Ninth Circuit has held that an entity that is not the direct employer of a Title VII plaintiff nevertheless may be liable if it interferes with an individual's employment opportunities with another employer.
   3. Based on the unusual amount of control that the State of California exercises over individual school districts, the Court holds that these defendants may be subjected to Title VII liability through their use of the CBEST examination.
   4. The following are some examples as to how the CBEST (in particular) and the State of California (in general) exert an unusual amount of control over individual school districts:
      1. A passing score on the CBEST is required for all public elementary and secondary school teachers in California.
      2. Unlike most States, individual school districts have budgets that are controlled and funded by the state government rather than the local districts.
      3. The State dictates whom the districts may and may not hire.
      4. In fact, the State of California is so entangled with the operation of local school districts that individual districts are treated as "state agencies" for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment.
   5. The defendants argue that state licensing exams (like the CBEST) are acts of state police power -- to which Title VII does not apply. But the Ninth Circuit disagrees. The CBEST is an exercise of both the state's police power and its proprietary power -- and it is the exercise of proprietary power that subjects the state to the coverage of Title VII in this case.
2. Was the CBEST a valid test under Title VII?
   1. The defendants do not contest the district court's finding that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of disparate impact on the basis of race.
   2. As a result, the burden shifts to the defendants to demonstrate that the CBEST was validated properly.
   3. In cases in which a scored test is challenged, like this one, the Ninth Circuit requires that the test be "job related" -- that is, "that it actually measures skills, knowledge, or ability required for successful performance of the job."
   4. Applying this standard to the facts of this case, the Court finds that the CBEST was validated properly.
3. District court's appointment of a technical advisor
   1. Plaintiffs argue that the proceedings were tainted by Dr. Stephen Klein who was appointed by the district court as a technical advisor, but who was not called as an expert witness, was not subject to cross-examination, and did not furnish an expert's report.
   2. The plaintiffs argue that this violates Federal Rule of Evidence 706(a). But the Court disagrees. Rule 706(a) applies to court-appointed expert witnesses, but not to technical advisors.
4. District court's refusal to award costs
   1. The district court refused to award the defendants their costs -- which amounted to $216,443.67.
   2. The district court gave four reasons for its refusal: (1) the case involved issues of substantial public importance; (2) there is great economic disparity between plaintiffs (who are individuals and "small nonprofit educational organizations") and the State of California; (3) the issues in the case are close and difficult; and (4) plaintiffs' case, although unsuccessful, had some merit, as evidenced by the 1995 modification of the CBEST.
   3. The Ninth Circuit finds no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to deny costs.
5. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court judgment in favor of the defendants and the district court order denying the defendants their costs.
6. Various Ninth Circuit judges concur and dissent (in whole or in part).
7. Click here to see actual case.