Watson v. Ft. Worth Bank and Trust
Key Points:
A)
Plaintiffs do not have to show intentional discrimination with regard to subjective information used
for employment decisions. That is, subjective information needs to comply with the requirement set
forth in Griggs regarding job-relatedness.
When an employer's "...undisciplined system of subjective decision-making has precisely the same
effects as a system perverted by intentional discrimination, it is difficult to see why Title VII" should
not apply"
Therefore, subjective employment practices can be challenged under disparate impact rule
B) A statistical difference may not be enough to establish a prima facie case
C) Majority of the Court required the plaintiff to identify the specific employment practice that caused
the statistical disparity between "protected" and "unprotected" group
D) Plurality lessened the burden of proof on the part of the company in demonstrating business
necessity
Watson v. Ft. Worth Bank and Trust (cont.)
Once the employer has "met its burden of producing evidence that its employment practices are
based on legitimate business reasons, the plaintiff must show" that there are other selection
methods available that would serve the employer's legitimate interests and that would not have
adverse impact
"Our cases make it clear that employers are not required, even when defending standardizes or
objective tests, to introduce formal 'validation studies' showing that particular criteria predict
actual on-the-job performance"
"...formal validation techniques endorsed by the EEOC in its Uniform Guidelines may sometimes
not be effective in measuring the job-relatedness of subjective selection procedures"
"...It is self-evident that many jobs, for example those involving managerial responsibilities,
require personal qualities that have never been considered amenable to standardized
testing...courts are generally less competent than employers to restructure business practices,
and unless mandated to do so by Congress, they should not attempt it"