## Facts

- Black employees and former employees at a paper mill brought a Title VII class action challenging seniority and pre-employment testing practices that disproportionately disadvantaged Black workers.
- The challenged practices included a seniority structure that, after reorganization under a collective-bargaining agreement, kept Black employees concentrated in lower-paying classifications and behind white employees in advancement.
- The employer used general ability tests (including the Beta and Wonderlic) in hiring and job assignment; the tests had an adverse racial impact.
- The district court ordered plant-wide seniority relief but denied class-wide backpay, reasoning that the employer had not acted in bad faith and that plaintiffs had earlier disclaimed backpay and delayed seeking it, allegedly causing prejudice.
- The district court also declined to enjoin the testing program, concluding the tests had been validated and were job related.
- The court of appeals reversed on backpay and testing, directing backpay and an injunction against the tests.
- The Supreme Court granted review on the standards governing backpay discretion and the proper analysis of test validation under Title VII.

## Issues

1. Under Title VII, when a violation is found, under what circumstances may a district court deny backpay to a prevailing class?
2. What standards govern whether employment tests with a disparate impact are sufficiently validated as job related under Title VII?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated and remanded.
- Backpay is the ordinary remedy after a Title VII violation and may be denied only for reasons that, if applied generally, would not defeat Title VII’s objectives of eliminating discrimination and making victims whole.
- The absence of employer bad faith is not a sufficient ground to deny backpay.
- Plaintiffs’ earlier disclaimer of backpay and delay in asserting a class backpay claim do not categorically bar backpay; whether delay was excusable and whether it caused actual prejudice are factual matters for application on remand under the correct legal standard.
- Tests that disproportionately exclude protected groups are unlawful unless the employer proves they are job related; the record did not support the district court’s acceptance of the employer’s validation, requiring reconsideration under proper validation principles.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII remedies must be administered to serve two central purposes: eliminating discriminatory practices and making victims whole.
- Backpay is presumptively appropriate once unlawful discrimination is established; a court’s equitable discretion to deny backpay is limited to reasons consistent with Title VII’s remedial purposes.
- Employer “good intent” or lack of discriminatory motive does not control either liability for disparate impact or entitlement to backpay.
- A delayed or initially disclaimed request for backpay is not a per se bar; denial on that basis requires a fact-based showing of unexcused delay and actual prejudice.
- Employment tests with disparate impact are permissible only if validated as job related through professionally acceptable methods; conclusory validation findings are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The Court held that backpay generally follows a Title VII violation and cannot be withheld based solely on an employer’s lack of bad faith, and it required rigorous, professionally grounded proof that disparate-impact employment tests are job related, vacating and remanding for application of these standards.


Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975)