## Facts

- The Omaha Girls Club, Inc. was a private, nonprofit organization serving girls ages 8–18 and operating programs aimed at pregnancy prevention.
- The Club expected staff to act as “role models” and to form close relationships with members so the girls would emulate staff behavior.
- Crystal Chambers, an unmarried Black woman, was hired in 1980 as an arts-and-crafts instructor.
- The Club maintained a written rule requiring termination (or non-retention) of employees who became pregnant while unmarried, based on the Club’s view that such employees could not effectively model behavior consistent with its pregnancy-prevention message.
- After Chambers became pregnant while unmarried, the Club terminated her employment pursuant to the rule; the trial court found she was fired solely because of her pregnancy.
- Chambers sued alleging, among other claims, Title VII disparate impact (asserting the rule disproportionately affected Black women) and disparate treatment/pregnancy discrimination under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), plus constitutional and other civil-rights claims against additional defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether the Club’s “single and pregnant” termination rule, found to have a disparate racial impact, was justified by business necessity under Title VII.
2. Whether firing an employee solely for being unmarried and pregnant violated Title VII as amended by the PDA, or instead fell within Title VII’s bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception.
3. Whether Chambers established constitutional or other federal civil-rights violations, including required state action, against the Club and other defendants.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed judgment for the defendants on all claims.
- On disparate impact, the court accepted the finding of disparate impact on Black women but held the Club proved business necessity because the rule bore a manifest relationship to the Club’s pregnancy-prevention mission and role-model approach, and Chambers did not show an equally effective, less discriminatory alternative.
- On disparate treatment/pregnancy discrimination, the court upheld application of the BFOQ exception, concluding the rule was reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the Club’s programs in light of its role-model function and pregnancy-prevention objectives.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Chambers’s additional constitutional and civil-rights claims, including claims requiring state action, and upheld disposition of claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3).

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII disparate-impact violation may be excused if the employer proves business necessity by showing the challenged practice is sufficiently related to legitimate organizational objectives and the plaintiff fails to prove a comparably effective, less discriminatory alternative.
- Title VII, as amended by the PDA, generally prohibits adverse employment actions because of pregnancy; however, the statutory BFOQ exception may apply in narrow circumstances if the employer proves the exclusion is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business.
- Courts may treat an organization’s core mission and the essential nature of a job (including a role-model function in youth programming) as relevant to both business-necessity and BFOQ analyses.
- Constitutional claims against private entities generally require proof of state action; failure to establish required elements warrants dismissal of constitutional and related civil-rights claims.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld the Club’s termination of an unmarried pregnant employee, concluding that—given the organization’s pregnancy-prevention mission and staff role-model expectations—the rule was justified by business necessity for disparate-impact purposes and qualified as a BFOQ for disparate-treatment/pregnancy-discrimination purposes, and that Chambers’s remaining constitutional and civil-rights claims failed.


Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club, Inc., 834 F.2d 697 (8th Cir. 1987)