Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Wards Cove: Its Disparate-Impact Burden Rule Was Later Changed by Congress

Decision: Supreme Court of the United States, No. 87-1387, decided June 5, 1989. Document: Published United States Reports opinion.

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio involved nonwhite cannery workers who alleged that hiring and promotion practices concentrated them in lower-paid cannery jobs while predominantly white workers held most higher-paid noncannery positions.

The comparison group had to match the jobs at issue

For skilled positions, the Court said the relevant comparison generally concerns the racial composition of the at-issue jobs and the qualified population in the relevant labor market, not simply the racial composition of different job groups inside the employer’s workforce.

The challenged practice needed a causal connection

A plaintiff could not rely only on an overall imbalance. The prima facie case had to identify one or more employment practices and show that each challenged practice produced a significant disparate impact, subject to rules for practices that cannot be separated for analysis.

The 1989 opinion allocated burdens narrowly

The decision placed a burden of production on the employer to offer a legitimate business justification while leaving the ultimate burden of persuasion with the employees. It also discussed less discriminatory alternatives in a demanding form.

Congress changed the governing statutory framework

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 amended Title VII’s disparate-impact provisions and superseded important Wards Cove rules. Current analysis must use 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-2(k), current precedent, the correct labor pool, reliable statistics, causation, business necessity, and available alternatives—not the 1989 burden allocation standing alone.

Key takeaways

Discuss the procedural record

Mission X Trial Lawyers represents clients in California. Call (949) 343-9735 or email office@mcxlegal.com.