Lexplug logoLexplug

El v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA")

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
479 F.3d 232 (2007)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employer's policy of permanently excluding applicants with violent criminal convictions from safety-sensitive positions may be justified by business necessity under Title VII if the employer produces unrebutted expert testimony that such individuals pose a greater risk than the general population, regardless of how much time has passed since the conviction.


Facts:

  • In 1960, at age 15, Douglas El was convicted of second-degree murder in connection with a gang-related fight.
  • El served three-and-a-half years in prison for this offense, which was his only violent conviction.
  • In January 2000, King Paratransit Services, Inc. ('King') conditionally hired El to drive paratransit buses, which serve people with mental and physical disabilities.
  • King was a subcontractor for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ('SEPTA').
  • The subcontract between King and SEPTA prohibited the hiring of anyone with a record of a felony conviction for a crime of violence.
  • Upon discovering El's 40-year-old murder conviction during a background check, King terminated his employment.
  • King personnel stated that the murder conviction was the sole reason for terminating El's employment.

Procedural Posture:

  • Douglas El filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which found in his favor but was unable to resolve the dispute.
  • El filed a class action lawsuit against SEPTA in the U.S. District Court, alleging the hiring policy violated Title VII.
  • SEPTA moved for summary judgment, arguing its policy was justified by business necessity.
  • The District Court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of SEPTA.
  • El, as the appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with SEPTA as the appellee.

Locked

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 policy of permanently disqualifying applicants with any record of a violent crime from positions involving the transportation of vulnerable passengers satisfy the business necessity defense under Title VII at the summary judgment stage, when the employer presents unrebutted expert testimony that such individuals pose a higher risk of future violence?


Opinions:

Majority - Ambro, Circuit Judge.

Yes. An employer's policy permanently disqualifying applicants with violent criminal convictions satisfies the business necessity defense at the summary judgment stage where the employer's expert evidence of heightened risk is unrebutted. The court adapted the business necessity standard for this context, holding that a risk-based hiring policy must accurately distinguish between applicants who pose an unacceptable level of risk and those who do not. SEPTA produced expert testimony from Dr. Blumstein, a criminologist, who stated that individuals with prior violent convictions are always more likely than the general public to commit future violent acts, even if the conviction is remote and the increased risk 'might be small.' He also testified that criminology could not accurately predict which individuals would reoffend. El failed to counter this evidence with his own expert or by deposing SEPTA's experts. While El presented evidence that SEPTA was careless in formulating its policy, this did not create a genuine issue of material fact because it did not directly rebut the expert testimony about the policy's accuracy in screening for risk. Without any contrary evidence in the record, a reasonable juror would be compelled to find that SEPTA's policy was consistent with business necessity.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the application of the business necessity defense to policies excluding applicants with criminal records, particularly for safety-sensitive jobs. It establishes that such cases can turn entirely on the strength and rebuttal of expert testimony regarding recidivism risk. The case serves as a crucial procedural lesson, emphasizing that a plaintiff cannot defeat summary judgment by merely pointing out flaws in the employer's policy-making process; they must produce affirmative evidence, typically from a competing expert, to create a triable issue of fact regarding the policy's job-relatedness and accuracy. The ruling solidifies the employer's position when its risk-assessment evidence is unchallenged, while leaving the door open for future plaintiffs who can present credible expert testimony that the risk posed by individuals with very remote convictions is no greater than that of the general population.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: El v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") (2007)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"