## Facts

- Chicago used a 1994 promotional examination to rank police officers for promotion to sergeant.
- The exam had three equally weighted parts (two multiple-choice components and an oral exam based on a written briefing), producing an eligibility list used for promotions in 1994, 1996, and February 22, 1997.
- The parties agreed the examination and resulting ranking produced a disparate impact on Black and Hispanic officers.
- A January 1997 task force recommended that future promotions include a merit component (e.g., supervisor evaluations) for a portion of promotions.
- The City did not add a merit component for the February 1997 sergeant promotions and instead promoted solely from the existing examination list.
- Plaintiffs argued a merit component was feasible because the City had used some merit-based selection for detective promotions since 1989 and later implemented merit-based components for promotions beginning in 1998.

## Issues

1. Whether, after showing disparate impact and assuming the City proved business necessity, plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence of an available alternative promotion method that was equally valid and less discriminatory than the 1994 examination for the February 1997 promotions.
2. Whether evidence of post-1997 changes to the promotion system could establish that a merit-based alternative was available in time for the February 1997 promotions.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the City.
- The court held plaintiffs did not meet their burden to show a concrete, workable merit-based alternative was available and could have been implemented for the February 1997 promotions.
- The court upheld exclusion of post-1997 evidence as not probative of availability in February 1997 and as subsequent remedial measures.
- Because plaintiffs failed to show an available alternative that the City refused to adopt, no reasonable jury could find for plaintiffs under Title VII’s disparate impact framework.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII disparate impact analysis, once a plaintiff shows disparate impact and the employer shows job-relatedness and business necessity, the plaintiff must prove an alternative employment practice that is equally valid, less discriminatory, and available, and that the employer refused to adopt it.
- The plaintiff bears the burden of identifying and supporting a specific alternative method with evidence of feasibility and availability at the relevant time.
- General policy recommendations or aspirations, without proof of a ready-to-implement system, do not establish an “available” alternative.
- Post-event reforms generally do not prove feasibility at the earlier decision point and may be excluded as subsequent remedial measures under Federal Rule of Evidence 407.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the City because the officers, despite showing disparate impact, failed to provide evidence that a merit-based promotion component was a feasible and available alternative for the February 1997 sergeant promotions that would have met the City’s legitimate needs with less adverse impact.


Adams v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2006)