Disperate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Turner v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 688 (8th Cir. August 30, 2005)

Jane Turner was a FBI Special Agent who filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging sex discrimination in June of 1998. She felt that her male peers and subordinates did not treat her with the respect she deserved for the grade she held. In April of 1999, five days after filing a complaint, Turner’s immediate supervisor gave her an out of cycle performance report. Tuner’s performance rating went from “Superior” to “Minimally Acceptable”. Over the following months, Turner’s supervisor began documenting problems with Turner's work. Turner received another poor performance rating in December 1999, making her eligible under FBI regulations for an involuntary transfer. She was immediately transferred from Minot, North Dakota to Minneapolis. In March of 2000 Tuner filed a second EEO complaint. She felt she was not given assignments equal to those she received in Minot (IntroLaw, 2006).

The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of the FBI on both the gender discrimination and the reprisal claims; however, on appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal of the discrimination and hostile work environment claims, but reversed the reprisal claims. The Eighth Circuit came to this conclusion because the actions taken against Turner after her complaint were considered adverse and they only started to occur after Turner filed the EEO complaints. Turner could not prove a prima face case for the gender discrimination and hostile work environment. The final issue involves the evidence of pretext. Turner presented sufficient evidence of pretext based upon her recent "Superior" review and the performance downgrade that came shortly after her letter of complaint (IntroLaw, 2006).

As an employee of the FBI, I have seen the direct impact of this case on my work environment. Director Robert Mueller has taken a strict zero tolerance stance against reprisal. All Supervisors within the FBI are required to sign the Director’s Reprisal Policy on an annual basis. They, and all employees, are also required to attend an annual EEO training course.

Disparate Impact

United States of America v. City of Virginia Beach, Virginia

In April of 2006 The United States Department of Justice brought action against the City of Virginia Beach, Virginia for its police department application practices. Since 1998 the Virginia Beach Police Department subjected all applicants to a standard math exam. The Department of Justice was able to show a gap between the passing rates for the white applicants and the passing rates of black and Hispanics. From 2002 to mid-2005 85 percent of white applicants passed the math exam, while only 59 percent of blacks and 66 percent of Hispanics were able to achieve a passing score.

The City of Virginia was unable to prove that the math exam was relevant to the daily duties of a police officer, nor could they show a relationship between police officers with higher test scores and the quality of police work they were able to perform. Nevertheless, the city continued