I. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Background
The plaintiff in this carry through has a high school education and has taken a biennial cosmetology agreement naturally. She started working for the Department of Public Welfare with the CETA Program in 1977 as an Administrator IV. Nine months former she was promoted to the plan position of deputy director of the CETA platform. In 1979 she was promoted to the position of Director V. Thompson held that placement until 1981 when the broadcast under which she was working was phased out. She then applied for the position of Supervisor II with the State Personnel Board. Thompson ‘s application was rejected because she did not meet the college education requirements for the Supervisor II put. At the clock time of her application the plaintiff was 59 years erstwhile. Thompson drew unemployment for three months after being rejected for the Supervisor II side. She was then hired as a hostess at the Greenville, Mississippi Country Club and held that stead for three years. Thompson then became director of the Cleveland Country Club in Cleveland, Mississippi. After being rejected for the place of Supervisor II, the plaintiff had a discussion with the then EEOC policeman at the Department of Public Welfare, Laurie Gervin. Gervin informed the plaintiff of her right to file a complaint with the EEOC. The plaintiff filed that claim and subsequently filed the clamant action. She claims that the educational requirements for the Supervisor II position discriminate against women in misdemeanor of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ) and that these requirements discriminate against persons who are 40 or older in trespass of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. )
At the time of the plaintiff ‘s application the State Personnel Board required that applicants for the Supervisor II position have a bachelor ‘s degree from an accredit four-year college or university and one year of know in a human service agency in a position that involved the provision of services to clients, or completion of two years of college with three years of experience. The Personnel Board has described the characteristics of the Supervisor II position as follows :
This is social work of a supervisory nature at the county or regional level. Work involves the supervision of full-time service staff with responsibility for intake work in providing services to adults, families and children, supervision and planning for the use of subprofessionals and volunteers, orientation and training of workers, and assisting the County Director with community and inter-agency activities. Incumbents in this position insure that acceptable standards for social services to adults, families, and children are maintained, that utmost use is made of community resources, that intake standards are maintained, and that all facets of the social service program are coordinated with other agency programs. Work is performed under the administrative supervision of the County Welfare Director, with technical supervision from the Supervisor III.
The responsibilities of a Supervisor II include supervision and evaluation of that supervisory program ‘s staff ; assignment of employment to members of the staff ; rendition and murder of policies and procedures of the Department of Welfare ; revue of work by the social service staff and intake staff ; conducting trail programs to increase staff competence and to improve staff performance ; and engagement in assorted early administrative and developmental activities. Barbara Rayburn, an experience social worker, met the educational requirements for the Social Worker II position and was hired for that put. Rayburn was 42 years old at the prison term she was hired, possessed a bachelor ‘s degree and had completed some graduate study. Most Supervisor II positions are filled by people who have previously worked as social workers. Rayburn testified that as a Supervisor II she uses her former feel as a social worker in making judgment calls on how to handle certain cases. The social worker stead has a college degree requirement. Rayburn testified that as Supervisor II she supervises social services programs, peculiarly the protective services program. This platform protects adults and children from pervert, neglect, and exploitation. Whenever a case of abuse, neglect, or exploitation is reported, the Supervisor II is responsible for assigning a social proletarian to the case and taking a address hired hand in all phases of the social proletarian ‘s activities, except for act matters. The position of Supervisor II is very interconnected with the position of social worker. Rayburn testified that a Supervisor II may sometimes be involved directly in the probe of a case and is required to make discretionary decisions based on the probe. A social actor who has investigated the case prepares a written report card and submits it to the Supervisor II. The Supervisor II then has final authority on whether to approve the social worker ‘s recommendation as to how the case should be handled or to proceed in another manner. The position ‘s responsibilities require that the supervisor be a skilled communicator. A Supervisor II ‘s responsibilities may involve having to petition the youth motor hotel for sealed legal military action and may require the Supervisor II to testify in court. Rayburn testified that a Supervisor II besides has the agency under certain circumstances to decide whether to take a child from the child ‘s dwelling without a court order. This may occur in hand brake situations when there is no fourth dimension to get a court decree. Rayburn stated that the position requires that the supervisor have great assessment skills and be able to make informed sagacity calls. Rayburn far testified that a Supervisor II has final province in the placement services that the social welfare department provides. A Supervisor II has the duty of approving or disapproving homes in which victims may be placed. The Supervisor II besides supervises services to unmarried parents. As a Supervisor II in Washington County Rayburn supervises ten social workers, nine aids and one general service employee. Her responsibilities as Supervisor II include training social workers, introducing the social workers to the policies of the department and clarifying departmental policies. The Supervisor II besides must conduct operation appraisals of the sociable workers who work under her and must correct errors that the sociable workers have made.
B. Work Force Data of Supervisor II Position
1. impact of Educational Requirement The following table depicts the work coerce typography of the Supervisor II position in 1981 and at stage : Date Total Workers No. of No. of Females No. 40 or No. Younger Males Over than 40 April 1981 22 2 20 12 10 1987 53 6 47 27 26 This information reveals that there is a well greater number of women who fill the side of Supervisor II than there are of men. besides, the Supervisor II position is composed of more people who are 40 years of senesce and older than of people who are under the age of 40. No evidence was submitted at test that the work force typography of the Supervisor II position was due to any affirmative natural process course of study implemented by the Personnel Board. Nevertheless, the plaintiff contends that the defendant ‘s employment practices have an adverse impact on women and individuals 40 years of senesce and older. The plaintiff asserts that the woo should not consider the fact that more women than men apply for and occupy the Supervisor II position because this testify is “ bottom wrinkle evidence. ” The plaintiff cites Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 102 S.Ct. 2525, 73 L.Ed.2d 130 ( 1982 ) as authority for this proposition. In Teal, the Supreme Court held that where a barrier exists that disproportionately causes persons in a protected group to be denied employment opportunities, the fact that the accession of an intervening element results in an appropriate balance in the ferment force does not affect the plaintiffs prima facie case of disparate impact as to that barrier.
In Teal, plaintiffs were required to pass a written examination before attaining permanent condition as Welfare Eligibility Supervisors. The test was taken by 329 candidates, 48 of whom were black and 259 of whom were flannel. Blacks passed the trial at a rate of 54.17 percentage, while whites passed at a rate of 68 percentage. The defendant did not deny that the interrogation itself resulted in a disparate shock on blacks. approximately one month prior to test, however, the defendant made promotions from the eligibility list of individuals who passed the examination. In making these promotions, the defendant applied an “ affirmative natural process program ” indeed that a higher percentage of blacks than whites were made permanent supervisors. The defendant asserted that because the bottom line solution of the promotion action was more favorable to blacks than whites, the examination could not be held to have a discriminatory shock on blacks.
The Supreme Court rejected the defendant ‘s argument and held that if a barrier has an adverse effect on a protect group of applicants, then individual applicants in that group have been deprived of an use opportunity in trespass of Title VII, careless of whether other procedures have been employed thus that there is adequate representation of the protected group at the bottom line. 457 U.S. at 448, 102 S.Ct. at 2531, 73 L.Ed.2d at 137-38.
In the case sub judice, there was no intervene component as there was in Teal that caused the Supervisor II work force to have an allow balance of workers from protected groups. In this case, unlike Teal, there was adequate representation of people within the plaintiffs class who applied for the Supervisor II military position, met the minimal requirements, and occupied the status. There has been no impact against a protect classify either at the initial reservation stage or at the bottom line. frankincense, the motor hotel sees no cause to exclude testify concerning the number and share of women applicants, of women who have met the minimal qualifications or of women who occupy the Supervisor II position. Both parties submitted technical testimony concerning the affect that the educational necessity has on the Supervisor II knead power and the speculate relatedness of the prerequisite. The plaintiff ‘s first expert, Dr. John Marcum, Jr., a demographer, stated that he studied applications for state jobs submitted in 1979 and 1980. He proceeded upon the theory that many who did not have a college academic degree did not apply for the position of Supervisor II because they were mindful of the educational requirement and thought that the application process would be bootless. Based on this assumption, he concluded that the proper pool to study was all applications for state of matter jobs, not just those applications for the position of Supervisor II. During the twoyear period that he studied, 13,000 applications were submitted for department of state jobs. Marcum used a sampling procedure whereby he took a representative issue of the applications to analyze. Out of this sample Marcum looked at the sex, age and years of education of those applicants. The court notes however, that this pool of submit subcontract applicants excludes all applicants for teaching positions in populace schools. consequently, many applicants for public jobs who possess college degrees were not included in this sketch. It did include, however, all applicants who applied for secretarial, receptionist, custodial, and clerical positions. A sum of 304 women and 128 men from the sample applied for country jobs. of these, 134 women met the Supervisor II qualifications while 88 men met the qualifications. Marcum found reservation rates of 44.08 percentage for women and 68.75 percentage for men. These rates show that the qualification rate for men is over 22 percentage higher than it is for women. Marcum besides evaluated the qualification rate for women all over 40 as opposed to men over 40. Although Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex and the ADEA prohibits discrimination based on senesce as to all individuals who are at least 40, neither codified recognizes the subset of women over 40 as being protected from adverse treatment as opposed to men over 40. frankincense, the plaintiff ‘s statistical data showing the unlike reservation rates of women over 40 and men over 40 without any data as to men and women younger than 40 is not probative in proving long time discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. In applying the 4/5ths rule to the sample from the pool of all applications for state jobs, Marcum found that the percentage of women who qualified ( 44.08 percentage ) for the Supervisor II status divided by the share of men who qualified ( 68.75 percentage ) equaled 64.12 percentage. Since this count is less than 80, Marcum concluded that the education necessity for the Supervisor II military position has an adverse impact on women. Marcum besides tested for statistical significance and found that the remainder between the reservation rates for the two groups was statistically meaning and consequently argue adverse impact on women. Marcum besides calculated the qualification rate for men and women with two years of college education. The pace was 52.4 percentage for women and 77.8 percentage for men. lotion of the 4/5ths convention to these rates besides resulted in a screening of adverse impact on women. adjacent, Marcum calculated the qualification rates for men over 40 and women over 40. He did not testify concerning the qualification rates of all applicants 40 years of historic period and older as opposed to all applicants younger than 40. The court finds that the relevant comparison should have been between the qualification rates of all applicants 40 years of senesce and older and all applicants younger than 40. consequently, Marcum ‘s calculations concerning the deviation between men over 40 and women over 40 may not be considered as a probative of age discrimination. Marcum additionally analyzed a 5 percentage sample of people between 21 and 65 from the 1980 Mississippi census data in terms of sex and college education. He stated that the qualification rates using the 4/5ths rule with this pool were fairly exchangeable to the rates found with the state of matter problem applicant pool. In evaluating the impact of the education necessity on the protect groups at emergence, the adept for the defendant, Dr. David Morris, made a study of applications that were actually submitted for the Supervisor II military position. Morris was of the impression that Marcum had used inappropriate pools as the basis of his study. Morris testified that in determining whether the educational prerequisite has an adverse impact on certain applicants for the Supervisor II position, the proper pool to evaluate is the pool of all applicants for that position. Morris testified that the pools that Marcum used for psychoanalysis are not american samoa dependable as actual applicant hang data for the Supervisor II status in determining adverse shock because with those pools, individuals who are not interest in the job are included in the analysis. Morris stated that the pools upon which Marcum based his discipline should not be used unless there is an reading that something in the minimum qualification would preclude protected groups from applying in the symmetry that would differently have been expected. The witness referred to this barrier as a “ cool effect. ” Morris stated that from viewing the consortium of Supervisor II applicants there was no reason to think that the educational necessity had a “ cool effect ” on women or people 40 years of age or older. In fact, many more women apply for the Supervisor II military position than do men. Because of the miss of indications of a chilling effect, Morris limited his study to the actual applicants for the Supervisor II caper. Morris studied the disapprove applications for the menstruation of January 1981 to present and studied the approved applications from November 1982 to present. Morris found a sum of 231 applications for the Supervisor II military position. These applicants were classified as to their historic period and sex. The following table indicates the makeup of this applicant pool : Number % Female 149 64.5 male 82 35.5 total 231 100.0 40 years and over 33 14.35 Under 40 197 85.65 *Total 230 100.00
*The difference of one less in totals was due to missing age data for one of the applicants.
As the table indicates, substantially more women than men applied for the Supervisor II put. well more people under 40 applied for the stead than did people 40 years of old age and older. thirty of the 231 applicants for the Supervisor II position did not meet the minimum educational requirements. Nineteen of these 30 were female and 11 were male. Three of the 30 were 40 years of old age or older, and 27 were under the age of 40. After conducting a chi-square contingency test on the relationship between the sex varying and meeting minimal requirements for the Supervisor II position, Dr. Morris found that the relationship is nonsignificant. Dr. Morris ‘s study indicates that there is fiddling, if any, dispute between the practice of males and females who met and failed to meet the minimum requirements for the Supervisor II place. Morris concluded from this study that the educational requirements had no adverse impact against females or males. The following mesa indicates the kinship between males and females in meeting the minimum qualifications for the Supervisor II military position : Mimmum Qualifications suffer Qualification Qualification Applicants Met Did not meet % that did not Total Mimmum s No. of s Male 71 11 13% 82 Female 130 19 13% 149 Total 201 30 13% 231 (Chi-squared observed = .004) P. 05 As the table indicates, there is no significant difference between the percentage of women who did not meet the minimum educational qualifications and the percentage of men who did not meet these qualifications. Met Did not meet % that did not Total Mimmum s No. of sulfur Male 71 11 13 % 82 Female 130 19 13 % 149 sum 201 30 13 % 231 ( Chi-squared observed = .004 ) P. 05 As the postpone indicates, there is no meaning difference between the share of women who did not meet the minimum educational qualifications and the percentage of men who did not meet these qualifications. Dr. Morris besides conducted a chi-square analysis on the relationship between age and meeting the minimum requirements for the Supervisor II position. Morris divided the age groups into two groups : those 40 years of age and older, and those under 40. A chi-square test is used to indicate whether or not either of these two senesce groups is favored by the minimum requirements. A meaning chi-square would indicate favoritism. After doing the analysis Morris found that the chi-square was non-significant and consequently did not show favoritism based on historic period. The following mesa shows the result of Morris ‘ analysis.
Chi-Square Test on Relationship Between Age and Meeting Mimmum Requirements
M.Q.’s Total 40 and above 30 3 9% 33 Under 40 170 27 14% 197 Met Did not % That M.Q.’s meet Did Not M.Q.’a Meet Total 200 30 13% 230 (Chi-squared observed = .202) P .05 As the table indicates, the educational requirement actually had a greater impact on those applicants younger than 40 than it had on the applicants who were 40 or older. Met Did not % That M.Q. ‘s suffer Did not M.Q. ‘a Meet Total 200 30 13 % 230 ( Chi-squared observed = .202 ) P .05 As the board indicates, the educational necessity actually had a greater affect on those applicants younger than 40 than it had on the applicants who were 40 or older. Morris besides conducted what is known as the “ 4/5ths convention ” or the 80 percentage predominate. This test is used as a scout to determine whether a job necessity may have an adverse impact upon a certain group. The 80 percentage rule is used by inaugural determining the number of men and womanhood who met the minimum educational qualifications and then dividing the larger number into the smaller number. The resulting proportion is then multiplied by 100. If the result is 80 percentage or larger, no adverse impingement is indicated. If function of the 4/5ths govern results in a number under 80, adverse impact is indicated. The results of the 4/5ths rule to the applicants for the Supervisor II position are indicated as follows :
80% Rule Test on Mimmum Requirements and Sex of Applicant
130 passed applicants passed applicants Pass rate for females = 149 total applicants = .872 71 passed applicants Pass rate for males 82 sum applicants = .866 .866 80 percentage rule = .872 x 100 = 99 % After conducting this trial Morris concluded that the 80 percentage rule calculation indicates that there is no adverse impact to women by requiring a college education for the Supervisor II position. A 4/5ths rule calculation was besides done as to individuals 40 years of age and older and as to those younger than 40. The following postpone shows the consequence of that calculation :
80% Rule Test on Mimmum Requirements and Age of Applicant
Pass rate for 40 30 passed applicants years and older = 33 full applicants = .909 Pass rate for under 170 passed applicants 40 years = 197 sum applicants = .863 .863 80 percentage rule = .909 x 100 95 % A higher percentage of applicants 40 years of age and older met the minimum qualifications than did applicants under 40. The 4/5ths rule calculations indicated no adverse impingement as to applicants who were 40 years of age and older. Dr. Morris ‘ conclusion from the study was that there was no adverse impact caused by the educational requirements on females or on those aged 40 or older. 2. Job Relatedness Dr. Eric Prien, an industrial psychologist, testified concerning the job-relatedness of the college education necessity to the Supervisor II position. Prien had not studied the Supervisor II position or interviewed any individuals holding that position, but had seen a narrative description of the job. Based on this caper description, Prien was of the opinion that the college education prerequisite does not validly relate to the needs of the Supervisor II stead but is simply a barrier so that fewer people will apply for the problem. Prien was of the public opinion that alternative qualifications to the college education prerequisite could be used as a better measure of an applicant ‘s accomplishment. Prien based his opinion in function upon the fact that the field of study for the college department of education required for the Supervisor II put is not specified. Prien reasoned that if the college field of sketch were specified, the attainment requirement would be connected to the accomplishment that is necessary for the subcontract. Prien was far of the opinion that the potential dangers of hiring an incompetent person for the Supervisor II placement were not critical. Dr. Morris besides testified concerning the job-relatedness of the educational requirements. He testified that he is personally familiar with the Supervisor II position. In 1977 his tauten conducted a validity learn at the Department of Public Welfare as to social workers and eligibility workers. These workers are supervised by the Supervisor II and the Supervisor II actually participates in much of the function that these employees do. After receiving the results of a position psychoanalysis questionnaire and doing a job analysis survey on the sociable workers and eligibility workers, Morris concluded that a college degree is necessity for the placement of Supervisor II and enhances the professionalism of that position. Morris found from his study that the duties of the Supervisor II include assigning work, evaluating operation of social workers, training personnel, resolving complaints, monitoring and certifying the type of aid to be given, classification of clients, and interpretation of policy to workers. Morris testified that in decree for Supervisor II to be able to accomplish all of these tasks and actually to participate in the activities of the social actor, the Supervisor II needs at least the cognition, skills and abilities that a social worker has. Morris stated that the demands of the Supervisor II position include that the Supervisor II have a strong reading inclusion, a broad free-base of cognition, oral and written communication skills, ability to identify problems, and ability to take in and digest large amounts of information promptly. Morris stated that college trail enables one to develop these skills. He stated that college train broadens one ‘s cognition base and requires one to read material that is more building complex than that that is read in high school. Morris stated that if the educational requirements were eliminated, the number of individuals who could not perform the command work ( assumed positives ) would increase and the degree of professionalism would decrease. Morris was of the opinion that a substantial gamble of critical consequences would exist if the educational necessity for the Supervisor II position were reduced. He based this public opinion on his familiarity with the Supervisor II military position and on finical actual situations of which he was mindful. After evaluating the Supervisor II situation, Morris concluded that college train is a fathom necessity for the job.
C. Court’s Factual Findings as to Work Force Data
1. Proper Pool and Impact on Women In looking at the actual applicant pool for the Supervisor II placement, the court notes that the percentage of female applicants for the side ( 64.5 % ) is well higher than the percentage of male applicants ( 35.5 % ). There is no attest in the record upon which the court may rely in inferring that differently qualified women were discouraged from applying for the Supervisor II position because of a self-recognized inability to meet the educational prerequisite. indeed, the high share of female applicants for the stead indicates that the educational prerequisite did not discourage otherwise qualified women from applying. Compare Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 330, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 2727, 53 L.Ed.2d 786, 798 ( 1977 ) ; cf. Williams v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 665 F.2d 918, 925 ( 9th Cir. 1982 ) ( actual applicant hang suggested as being accurate indicator of relevant markets, “ at least where there is no evidence of taxonomic discouragement of minority applicants ” ). The court finds that the pool of actual applicants for the Supervisor II situation is a more accurate indicator of the impingement on the employer ‘s knead storm of the department of education requirement than is the pool of all applicants for all submit jobs. The consortium of all applicants for all state jobs does not include applicants for public school teaching positions and does not take into account whether those who applied for the assorted department of state jobs would have been interest in the Supervisor II side. besides, even if the college department of education requirement did not exist for the Supervisor II position, applicants would still have to have at least one class of human service experience. The pool of applicants for all state jobs does not take into score whether those individuals met that necessity. These deficiences make the plaintiff ‘s statistical proof unacceptable for determining disparate affect in this casing. In the 1980-81 school year there were 25,502 public school teachers in Mississippi, 20,062 of whom were female. Based on the number and percentage of women applicants for the Supervisor II position and on the equal share of men and women applicants who met the minimal educational qualifications for the Supervisor II placement ( see table, supra at 206 ), the court finds as a count of fact that the college education necessity does not adversely affect women. 2. Proper Pool and Impact on Inditiduals 40 Years of Age and Older The applicants for the Supervisor II position who were 40 years of age and older were substantially out-numbered by the applicants who were younger than 40. only 33 of the 230 applicants were older than 39. This disparity could be some tell that otherwise qualify individuals who were all over 39 may have been discouraged from applying for the Supervisor II situation because of the education requirement. flush if this were so, the court finds that the defendant ‘s statistics concerning the actual applicant pool are more dependable in determining the impact of the educational necessity on individuals 40 years of age and older than are the plaintiff ‘s statistics. The plaintiff submitted statistical data from the pool of applicants for all state jobs concerning the different rates at which women over 40 and men over 40 meet the college education necessity. The plaintiff did not submit statistical evidence from the state of matter jobs pond concerning the unlike rates at which all individuals over 40 meet the educational requirement as opposed to all individuals younger than 40. thus, the woo finds that the plaintiff has not submitted evidence that the education prerequisite has an adverse impact on individuals who are 40 years of old age and older. A comparison of women and men over 40 does not support an age discrimination title. The court farther notes that although well fewer individuals over 39 applied for the Supervisor II position, the share of these individuals that met the educational requirement was higher than the percentage of individuals younger than 40 that met the necessity. Based on this evidence, the court finds as a count of fact that the college education necessity for the Supervisor II military position does not adversely impact individuals 40 years of age and older.
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The plaintiff ‘s Title VII and ADEA claims against the defendant are based upon a disparate impact theory. To establish a leading facie case of disparate impact, a plaintiff must identify a facially neutral employment drill or prerequisite that has the effect of disqualifying a disproportionate issue of members of a protect class from employment opportunities. Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 446, 102 S.Ct. 2525, 2530, 73 L.Ed.2d 130 ( 1982 ) ; Bunch v. Bullard, 795 F.2d 384, 392 ( 5th Cir. 1986 ). once a plaintiff has made out a leading facie case, the burden then shifts to the employer to prove that the challenge employment exercise that operates to exclude a larger part of a protected class is related to occupation performance. Walls v. Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare, 730 F.2d 306, 315 ( 5th Cir. 1984 ) ; Carpenter v. Stephen F. Austin State University, 706 F.2d 608, 621 ( 5th Cir. 1983 ). If the employer proves that the employment barrier is job-related, the plaintiff then may still be able to show that the barrier is “ a mere pretext for discrimination. ” Bunch, 795 F.2d at 393. The plaintiff may show that other adequate survival devices are available that do not have a discriminative effect against a protected class. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2375, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 ( 1975 ). The express strongly argues that the disparate affect theory of discrimination may not serve as a basis of liability in ADEA actions. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has not directly ruled on this issue. In the instantaneous casing, the court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to decide this legal write out because the court finds that even if the disparate impingement theory may be used in long time discrimination cases, the plaintiffs have not shown that the defendant ‘s employment drill of requiring college department of education caused a disparate impact on persons at least 40 years of age. 1. Prima Facie Case The use of mere statistical information or census data indicating that fewer people within a protect class possess a challenge educational prerequisite than people outside a protected class “ is not sufficient to indicate the disparate impingement of that necessity. ” Walls v. Mississippi State Department of Public Welfare, 542 F. Supp. 281, 310 ( N.D.Miss. 1982 ), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 730 F.2d 306 ( 5th Cir. 1984 ). quite, there must be a show that the facially impersonal choice standard is causally connected to an asymmetry in employment opportunities within the finical defendant ‘s work coerce. See Carroll v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 708 F.2d 183, 189 ( 5th Cir. 1983 ). If the plaintiff fails to prove the causal association between the educational necessity and actual disparities in use opportunities within the defendant ‘s work military unit, then the motor hotel must find that there is no disparate impact on the protected class. Under the facts of the case sub judice, the plaintiff must show that the college education prerequisite for the Supervisor II position operates more gratingly on women and/or on people 40 years of historic period or older than on men and/or people under 40. statistical testify based on the pool of all applicants for the Supervisor II position shows that women have met the educational requirement for the position at the same rate that men have met the necessity. ( See table, supra at 205 ). Individuals 40 years of long time and older met the educational qualification at a higher rate than did individuals younger than 40. ( See board, supra at 206. ) Based on this information, the court has found that the educational prerequisite does not have a disparate shock on women or on people 40 years of age and older. consequently, the motor hotel is of the opinion that the defendant ‘s educational necessity is not in irreverence of Title VII or the ADEA. 2. Job Relatedness “ The brink inquiry, and the trip of the employers ‘ burden to prove job relatedness, is whether the plaintiff hour angle [ randomness ] shown that the [ educational prerequisite ] in motion blue-ribbon [ mho ] applicant [ s ] for lease or forwarding in a racial model importantly different from the pool of applicants. ” Bunch, 795 F.2d at 395. Since the plaintiff in this event has not made this screening and consequently has not made out a leading facie case, the court finds that the defendant does not have to prove that the college education prerequisite for the Supervisor II placement is job-related. flush if the plaintiff had shown disparate impact, the court is however of the opinion that the defendant ‘s proof has sufficiently shown that the college education prerequisite has a manifest relationship to the requirements of the Supervisor II position. In determining the extent of job-relatedness that must be shown by the employer, this court is guided by the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Davis v. City of Dallas, 777 F.2d 205 ( 5th Cir. 1985 ) cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1116, 106 S.Ct. 1972, 90 L.Ed.2d 656 ( 1986 ). In Davis, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit examined the job-relatedness defense in disparate impact suits. The court noted that in prior Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit cases in which educational requirements were struck polish, the positions at issue were skilled laborer positions. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 ( 1971 ) ( high school diploma or news test excrete grade was discipline to use in skilled labor jobs ) ; Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 ( 1975 ) ( skilled laborers required to have eminent school diploma and elapse two intelligence tests ) ; Watkins v. Scott Paper Co., 530 F.2d 1159 ( 5th Cir. 1976 ) cert. denied, 429 U.S. 861, 97 S.Ct. 163, 50 L.Ed.2d 139 ( 1976 ) ( educational barriers to skilled labor jobs ) ; United States v. Georgia Power Co., 474 F.2d 906 ( 5th Cir. 1973 ) ( high gear school diploma required for skilled labor movement place at electric office plant ). The Davis court noted that in these anterior cases the educational requirements were abolished for jobs that did not require professionalism and did not involve an unusual degree of risk or public responsibility. Davis, 777 F.2d at 211. The motor hotel then found that the position of police officer is unlike the other positions that had previously been analyzed by the courts because it involves aspects of professionalism, public risk and responsibility. Id. This crucial eminence was the basis of the court ‘s line up that the job relatedness of the college educational necessity for the placement of police military officer should be examined under a lighter standard than had been used in cases involving skilled laborers. In applying this unaccented standard, the court found that the educational prerequisite was obviously related to the patrol officer position requirements. Id. After reviewing the requirements and responsibilities of the Supervisor II status in the moment case, this woo has found that the job may at times involve high risk to the public and requires a high degree of professionalism. The Supervisor II military position, like the police officer place in Davis, requires that the person in that position be able to function effectively as a crisis intervenor, be able to make instantaneous decisions, and have gain judgment under circumstances where there may be no clear guidelines on which to base a decision. The Supervisor II must besides provide guidance for social workers under her supervision and be able to evaluate the social workers ‘ performance. The motor hotel finds that although some of the job-related skills that are necessary for the more everyday aspects of the Supervisor II position could possibly be quantified and tested for, other aspects of the job call for skills and abilities which are specially unmanageable to define precisely, to test for, and to quantify. A dowry of the detect by the zone court in Davis concerning the position of police officer is equally applicable to the position of Supervisor II :
[C]haracteristics which must be found in an applicant [and new Supervisor II] are not easily measured in terms of statistical analyses, such as individual judgment, ability to intervene in volatile situations (i.e., domestic quarrels), ability to make important decisions, or presence and performance as a witness in court.
Davis, 777 F.2d at 216. Unlike many skilled and unskilled laborer jobs which rarely call for discretionary decisions, the position of Supervisor II routinely calls for the exercise of discretion under various circumstances. The Supervisor II also must have a high degree of tact, intelligence and sound judgment in making important decisions concerning the livelihood of the children and households with which she deals. Because of the professional nature of the Supervisor II position and the public interest involved, in the put, the court finds that empiric testify is not required in ordain to validate the job-relatedness of the educational requirements for the Supervisor II position. Compare Davis, 777 F.2d at 217 ( empiric attest not required to validate educational requirement for patrol officers ) ; Rice v. City of St. Louis, 464 F. Supp. 138 ( E.D.Mo. 1978 ), aff’d, 607 F.2d 791 ( 8th Cir. 1979 ) ( college degree necessity for public health actor upheld based on adept testimony ). The ballad testimony american samoa well as the technical testimony of Dr. Morris in this case adequately establishes the relationship between requirements for the Supervisor II position and college education. The testimony shows that not only is college education necessary, but besides that the college course of cogitation prescribed should be in the social sciences area. Although the evidence indicates that the college educational necessity should be more narrowly tailored to the sociable sciences area, the lack of this more refined necessity is not proper causal agent for wholly abolishing the college education requirement. preferably, it is up to the personnel control panel to determine whether it should raise its minimum qualifications for the Supervisor II position.
When professional positions such as the Supervisor II position involve dealing with the support of the populace and particularly of children, whether directly or in a supervisory capacity, this court is of the opinion that public concern in the benefit of these individuals is overriding and justifies high employment standards, including college educational requirements.
Read more: Tetris Echalk – Apps Store
Based upon the preponderance of the credible evidence and the applicable law, the court concludes that the educational prerequisite for the Supervisor II position does not have an adverse shock on women or on individuals at least 40 years of age. tied if there were such an impact, the educational requirement is sufficiently job-related to justify its continue application. consequently, judgment shall be entered for the defendant.