chambers v. omaha girls club, inc.
834 F.2d 697 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employment policy that has a discriminatory effect may be lawful under Title VII if it qualifies as a business necessity or a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) that is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the employer's business.
Facts:
- The Omaha Girls Club, a private non-profit, provides programs to assist young girls, aged eight to eighteen, in maximizing their life opportunities, with a focus on pregnancy prevention.
- A majority of the girls served by the Club are Black.
- The Club's operational approach emphasizes staff members acting as positive role models for the girls.
- Pursuant to this approach, the Club established a 'role model rule' that prohibited staff from engaging in 'negative role modeling,' which explicitly included 'single parent pregnancies.'
- Crystal Chambers, a Black, single woman, was employed by the Club as an arts and crafts instructor.
- Chambers became pregnant and notified her supervisor.
- Subsequently, the Club terminated Chambers' employment, citing her pregnancy as a violation of the role model rule.
Procedural Posture:
- Crystal Chambers filed a discrimination charge with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC), which found no reasonable cause.
- Chambers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska against the Omaha Girls Club and others, alleging violations of Title VII, civil rights statutes, and state law.
- The district court dismissed several claims and defendants on pre-trial motions.
- During a jury trial on the remaining civil rights claims, the district court directed a verdict in favor of the Club.
- Following a bench trial on the Title VII claims, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Omaha Girls Club, finding its rule was justified by business necessity.
- Chambers, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
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 non-profit organization's 'role model rule,' which prohibits single-parent pregnancies among its staff and results in the termination of a single, pregnant employee, violate Title VII's prohibition on sex and race discrimination?
Opinions:
Majority - Wollman, J.
No. The Omaha Girls Club's rule banning single-parent pregnancies among its staff does not violate Title VII because the rule is justified as both a business necessity and a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). The court first analyzed the rule under a disparate impact theory, acknowledging that the policy disproportionately affects Black women. However, the court affirmed the district court's finding that the rule constituted a business necessity, as it has a 'manifest relationship' to the Club's fundamental mission of preventing teenage pregnancy and providing positive role models. The court held that empirical validation of the rule's effectiveness was not required and that the Club had reasonably determined that less discriminatory alternatives, such as a leave of absence or a non-contact position, were unworkable. The court then found that the rule also qualifies as a BFOQ, noting the significant overlap between the business necessity and BFOQ analyses. Because the rule was found to be essential to the Club's primary purpose, it was deemed 'reasonably necessary to the normal operation' of the enterprise.
Dissenting - McMillian, J.
Yes. The Omaha Girls Club's rule violates Title VII because the Club failed to meet its heavy burden of proving that the discriminatory policy was justified by business necessity or was a BFOQ. The dissent argued that the Club's justification for the rule rested on speculation and 'honestly believed' assumptions, rather than on any empirical data, surveys, or other evidence demonstrating a causal link between the presence of a single, pregnant staff member and the incidence of teenage pregnancy. The dissent cited several cases from other circuits involving school districts where similar 'role model' defenses for firing unwed pregnant teachers were rejected for lack of proof. Furthermore, the dissent contended that the Club failed to show that less discriminatory alternatives, such as granting Chambers a leave of absence, were not viable, dismissing the Club's reasons as mere administrative inconvenience.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its application of the business necessity and BFOQ defenses to an employer whose core mission is centered on promoting specific social values and behaviors. The decision illustrates that in such contexts, a court may find a discriminatory policy is 'job-related' even without empirical validation, so long as the employer can articulate a strong, logical connection between the policy and its fundamental purpose. This gives considerable deference to the business judgment of organizations like the Girls Club. The case highlights the high evidentiary bar for plaintiffs trying to overcome these defenses when an employer's business is arguably 'selling' a lifestyle or value system to its clients.
Unlock the full brief for chambers v. omaha girls club, inc.