## Facts

- Douglas El, an African American applicant, was conditionally hired in January 2000 by King Paratransit Services, a subcontractor providing SEPTA paratransit services.
- Paratransit drivers transported passengers with mental and physical disabilities using door-to-door and curb-to-curb service.
- SEPTA’s subcontract required exclusion of applicants with specified “violent criminal” convictions.
- A background check revealed El had a 1960 conviction for second-degree murder committed when he was 15; he served about three and a half years and had no later violent convictions.
- King terminated El, stating the conviction was the sole reason.
- El sued SEPTA under Title VII, alleging SEPTA’s categorical criminal-record policy had a disparate impact on African American and Hispanic applicants.

## Issues

1. Whether a categorical exclusion of applicants with specified violent convictions for paratransit driver positions violates Title VII due to disparate impact on minority applicants.
2. Whether, on summary judgment, SEPTA proved the policy was job-related and consistent with business necessity, and whether El produced sufficient evidence to rebut that showing or identify a less discriminatory alternative.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for SEPTA.
- The court held SEPTA satisfied its burden to show the exclusion was consistent with business necessity for paratransit drivers serving vulnerable passengers, supported by expert evidence on recidivism risk.
- The court held El failed to rebut SEPTA’s showing with competing evidence or by proposing an alternative practice shown to meet SEPTA’s safety objectives with less discriminatory effect.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII disparate-impact doctrine, once a plaintiff shows a facially neutral practice causes significant adverse racial impact, the employer must prove the practice is job-related for the position and consistent with business necessity.
- The business-necessity showing is demanding; the employer must demonstrate the policy meaningfully distinguishes applicants who pose an unacceptable risk from those who do not.
- If the employer meets its burden, the plaintiff must rebut the employer’s proof or identify a less discriminatory alternative that would serve the employer’s legitimate goals.
- EEOC guidance on criminal records and the *Green* factors may inform analysis, but they are not binding; the controlling inquiry remains whether the challenged practice is sufficiently connected to legitimate job risks and is reasonably necessary given the position and context.
- On summary judgment, where the employer’s justification rests on expert evidence tied to the job’s safety risks, the plaintiff’s failure to present countervailing evidence or a substantiated alternative can be dispositive.

## Conclusion

The court upheld SEPTA’s violent-conviction exclusion for paratransit drivers because SEPTA produced record evidence, including expert testimony, supporting a safety-based business-necessity justification tied to the vulnerability of the passenger population, and El offered no evidence creating a triable dispute or establishing an effective less discriminatory alternative.


El v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 479 F.3d 232 (3d Cir. 2007)