Brunet v. City of Columbus
642 F. Supp. 1214 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employment test with a disparate adverse impact on a protected class violates Title VII unless the employer proves it is job-related. For a test used to rank-order candidates to be considered job-related, it must be a representative sample of the critical work behaviors and abilities required for the job, and the employer must demonstrate that higher scores on the test are likely to result in better job performance.
Facts:
- The City of Columbus used a multi-part examination to select entry-level firefighters in 1980 and 1984.
- Ann Brunet, Lynn Shearrow, Rebecca Schumacher, and Edwina Hornung were female applicants who took the tests but were not selected as firefighters.
- The 1984 examination consisted of a written test and a physical abilities test, with the scores combined and weighted to create a rank-ordered eligibility list for hiring.
- The 1984 physical test was composed of scored events such as a sandbag drag, pike pole pull, equipment hoist, and stairway climb, which heavily emphasized speed and anaerobic strength.
- Female applicants as a group scored significantly lower than male applicants on the 1984 physical test.
- The selection rate for women from the 1984 examination was 2.4%, which was approximately 26% of the 9.2% selection rate for men, demonstrating a severe adverse impact.
Procedural Posture:
- Ann Brunet and other female applicants filed charges of sex discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and received right-to-sue letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against the City of Columbus and its officials in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- The complaint alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under a disparate impact theory and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under an intentional discrimination theory.
- The defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding claims arising from the 1980 examination.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial before the district court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city's physical abilities test for firefighter applicants violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it has a disparate adverse impact on women and is used to rank-order candidates, but the employer has not shown that the test is a representative sample of the job's essential functions or that higher scores correlate with better job performance?
Opinions:
Majority - Kinneary, District Judge
Yes, the city's 1984 physical abilities test violates Title VII because it has a disparate adverse impact on women and the city failed to prove it is sufficiently job-related to justify its use for ranking candidates. The court found that while the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of disparate impact for the 1984 exam, the city failed to meet its burden of proving the test had a 'manifest relationship' to the job. The court determined the physical test was not 'content-valid' because it was not a representative sample of the job; it overemphasized speed and anaerobic strength while underemphasizing endurance (stamina), an ability incumbent firefighters rated as critical. Crucially, because the city used the test to rank-order candidates, it had a higher burden to show that higher scores correlate with better job performance, a burden it failed to meet. However, the court found the mechanical reasoning portion of the test was valid, and the claims regarding the 1980 test failed because hiring statistics for that year showed no adverse impact on women.
Analysis:
This case provides a detailed application of Title VII's disparate impact theory to public safety employment testing, clarifying the rigorous standards for test validation. It establishes that for a test used to rank-order applicants, being generally related to the job is insufficient; the test must be a representative sample of all critical job functions and abilities. The decision significantly heightens the burden on employers using rank-ordering, requiring them to empirically demonstrate that small differences in test scores actually predict meaningful differences in job performance. This precedent forces municipalities to conduct more thorough job analyses and design more holistic tests, moving away from simple measures of strength and speed that disproportionately exclude female candidates without a proven link to overall job success.
