## Facts

- The Chicago Police Department administered a 1994 promotional examination to select sergeants for promotion to lieutenant.
- The City hired an industrial-organizational psychologist, Dr. Gerald Barrett, to develop the exam following a detailed job analysis.
- The exam had three components: a written job-knowledge test, a closed-universe hypothetical exercise, and an oral exercise assessing analytical and communication skills.
- 765 sergeants took the exam; approximately 24% were Black and 7% were Hispanic.
- The City promoted the top 108 scorers; five promoted candidates were Black and one was Hispanic, yielding a substantially lower minority promotion rate than the minority share of test-takers.
- Forty-four Black and Hispanic sergeants who were not promoted sued under Title VII on a disparate-impact theory and did not allege intentional discrimination.
- The parties agreed the statistics established a prima facie disparate-impact case; the City defended the test as job-related and consistent with business necessity, relying on Barrett’s testimony.
- After a bench trial, the district court found the exam content valid and permissible for rank-order promotions, but also found a less discriminatory alternative (greater use of merit-based promotions) and awarded limited promotional and monetary relief.
- Plaintiffs appealed the admission and substance of the expert testimony, the validity of rank-order use, and the scope of relief; the City challenged aspects of the remedy.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Daubert and Kumho Tire by admitting and crediting the City’s expert testimony on the exam’s validity.
2. Whether the promotional exam was job-related and consistent with business necessity under Title VII disparate-impact standards, including its use for rank-order promotions.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering limited relief after finding a less discriminatory alternative selection method.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting and relying on Barrett’s expert testimony under Daubert/Kumho Tire.
- The court held the City met its Title VII burden by showing the exam was content valid, job-related, and consistent with business necessity, and that rank-order promotions based on the scores were permissible.
- The court upheld the district court’s remedial and fee rulings as within equitable discretion given the plaintiffs’ limited success.

## Legal Principles

- Under Daubert and Kumho Tire, the reliability inquiry is flexible; experience-based expert opinions may be admissible when the expert applies the level of intellectual rigor typical in the relevant field.
- In a Title VII disparate-impact case, once plaintiffs establish prima facie adverse impact, the employer must show the challenged practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- A professionally developed exam supported by a thorough job analysis can satisfy content validity and the business-necessity defense even if it produces adverse impact.
- If a selection device is shown valid and reliable, an employer may use resulting scores for rank-order promotions.
- Remedial choices and attorneys’ fee determinations in Title VII equitable relief are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and limited relief may be appropriate where plaintiffs prevail only in part.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld the City’s lieutenant promotion exam as content valid and job-related despite adverse impact, found no error in admitting the City’s expert testimony under Daubert/Kumho Tire, and affirmed the district court’s limited remedial and fee decisions.


Bryant v. City of Chicago, 200 F.3d 1092 (7th Cir. 2000)