EEOC v. Joe's Stone Crabs, Inc.
220 F.3d 1263 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim of disparate impact discrimination under Title VII requires a plaintiff to identify a specific, facially-neutral employment practice that is the direct cause of a statistical disparity. An employer's reputation for intentional discrimination cannot serve as the causal link between a neutral practice and the disparity if the neutral practice itself did not cause the reputation or the disparity.
Facts:
- Joe’s Stone Crab, Inc. (Joe's) is a landmark seafood restaurant in Miami Beach with a history of its food server staff being almost exclusively male since 1950.
- This practice was rooted in a desire to emulate an 'Old World' European fine-dining tradition where high-level service is performed by men.
- Joe's hired servers through an annual 'roll call,' where a maitre d' conducted brief interviews and made hiring decisions based on subjective factors like 'appearance, articulation, attitude, and experience,' without formal policies or management oversight.
- Between 1986 and 1990, Joe's hired 108 male food servers and zero female food servers.
- During this period, very few women, estimated at no more than 3% of the total applicant pool, attended the roll calls.
- Joe's developed a widely-known reputation in the local community for not hiring female servers, which the trial court found discouraged qualified women from applying.
- Joe's management was found to have 'acquiesced in and gave silent approbation to the notion that male food servers were preferable to female food servers' to create a specific restaurant 'ambience.'
- After the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a discrimination charge in 1991, Joe's began hiring women; from 1991 to 1995, women constituted approximately 22% of applicants and 21.7% of hires.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 25, 1991, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a discrimination charge against Joe’s Stone Crab, Inc.
- After attempts at conciliation failed, the EEOC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 8, 1993, alleging both intentional disparate treatment and unintentional disparate impact discrimination.
- A bench trial was held on the issue of liability.
- The district court entered a partial final judgment, finding that the EEOC had not proven its intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) claim.
- The district court found Joe's liable for disparate impact discrimination, identifying the 'undirected and undisciplined delegation of hiring authority' as the challenged practice.
- Following a separate bench trial on remedies, the district court awarded backpay and prejudgment interest to four claimants and ordered extensive injunctive relief.
- Joe’s Stone Crab, Inc. (as appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with the EEOC as the appellee.
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 an employer's subjective hiring process constitute a facially-neutral employment practice that causes a disparate impact under Title VII where the statistical disparity in hiring is caused by the employer's reputation for intentional discrimination, rather than by the hiring process itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Marcus, Circuit Judge
No. A disparate impact claim cannot be based on a statistical disparity caused by an employer's reputation for intentional discrimination rather than by a specific, facially-neutral employment practice itself. Disparate impact theory targets facially-neutral practices that are the functional equivalent of intentional discrimination. Here, there was no statistical disparity between the women who actually applied to Joe's and those who were hired; the hiring rate was proportional to the applicant pool. The district court created a disparity only by comparing hires to a constructed 'qualified labor pool,' reasoning that Joe's reputation skewed the actual applicant data. However, the identified 'neutral practices'—word-of-mouth recruiting and subjective hiring—were not the cause of the disparity. The roll calls were well-known, and the subjective criteria did not disproportionately harm women who applied. The true cause of the low number of female applicants was Joe's reputation for intentional discrimination. Reputation itself is not a 'facially-neutral employment practice' for the purpose of a disparate impact claim. The district court's findings—that Joe's cultivated an 'Old World' ambience with male servers and systematically excluded women—strongly support a claim for intentional discrimination (disparate treatment). Because the district court's factual findings conflict with its legal conclusion, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for reconsideration of the intentional discrimination claim.
Dissenting - Hull, Circuit Judge
Yes. The district court correctly identified facially-neutral employment practices that caused the gender disparity, and its finding of disparate impact liability should be affirmed. The key facially-neutral practice was management's 'undirected and undisciplined delegation of hiring authority,' which included a lack of hiring guidelines and reliance on purely subjective interviews. These practices, viewed in the context of Joe's long history of discrimination and resulting reputation, perpetuated the exclusion of women. The subjective system allowed interviewers, who admittedly viewed serving as a 'male... type of job,' to continue hiring only men. This is a classic example of a neutral practice 'freezing' the status quo of past discrimination, which is precisely what disparate impact theory is designed to address. Alternatively, if the facts primarily support disparate treatment, the appellate court should affirm on that alternate ground rather than remand, as the district court’s factual findings are extensive and its incorrect rejection of the claim likely stemmed from a mistaken view of the law.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial clarification of the boundary between disparate impact and disparate treatment theories of employment discrimination. It prevents the two distinct legal doctrines from being conflated by holding that a disparate impact claim must be linked to a specific, facially-neutral practice, not merely an employer's reputation for intentional discrimination. The decision forces plaintiffs to align their evidence with the correct legal theory; if the evidence points to intentional conduct and discriminatory animus (even based on stereotypes), the claim must be brought as disparate treatment, which requires proof of intent. This precedent makes it more difficult to use statistical disparities caused by a chilling reputation as a basis for a disparate impact claim, reinforcing that such claims must target the effects of specific, neutral policies.
