## Facts

- Five women with paramedic experience applied to become paramedics with the Chicago Fire Department and were required to pass a physical-skills entrance exam adopted in 2000.
- Chicago had previously hired paramedics without a physical test.
- The exam, developed by an outside consultant, tested three exercises (stair climb, arm endurance, leg lift) and claimed to correlate them to job-related tasks.
- The consultant’s validation work relied on volunteers rather than incumbent paramedics; the consultant acknowledged the volunteers performed better than paramedics ordinarily do.
- From 2000–2009, pass rates showed a large sex disparity: about 98% of men passed versus about 60% of women.
- Each plaintiff failed the exam and was denied a paramedic position.
- The plaintiffs sued under Title VII, alleging (1) disparate treatment based on intentional adoption/design of the test to exclude women and (2) disparate impact based on a facially neutral test that disproportionately excluded women.
- The case was bifurcated: disparate-treatment claims were tried to a jury (verdict for the City), and disparate-impact claims were tried to the court (judgment for the City based on business necessity).

## Issues

1. Whether the jury instructions on the disparate-treatment theory misstated the plaintiffs’ burden by focusing on individual hiring outcomes rather than intent in adopting/designing the exam.
2. Whether the City proved the exam was job-related and consistent with business necessity, given conceded disparate impact and the City’s reliance on a validation study.
3. Whether challenged evidentiary rulings required reversal.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit held the jury instructions on disparate treatment were erroneous and remanded for a new jury trial on those claims.
- The court reversed the judgment for the City on disparate impact and concluded the plaintiffs should prevail because the validation study was unreliable and did not satisfy federal standards for validating selection procedures.
- The court directed judgment for the plaintiffs on the disparate-impact claims.
- The court affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings.

## Legal Principles

- In a Title VII disparate-treatment challenge to an employment test, the factfinder must be instructed to decide whether the employer adopted or designed the test with discriminatory intent; an instruction that redirects the inquiry to whether each plaintiff would have been hired if male misstates the theory.
- In a Title VII disparate-impact case, once disparate impact is shown (or conceded), the employer bears the burden to prove the challenged practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- A selection test with disparate impact must be supported by a professionally sound validation study using reliable methodology, representative sampling, and appropriate statistical analysis under federal validation standards.
- A cutoff score or difficulty level must measure the minimum qualifications necessary for successful job performance; a test substantially more difficult than the job’s actual demands cannot be justified as a business necessity absent proof that the higher level is required.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit ordered judgment for the plaintiffs on their disparate-impact claim because Chicago failed to prove its paramedic physical exam was valid and necessary for the job, and it remanded for a new trial on disparate-treatment claims due to jury instructions that did not properly frame intent in adopting the exam.


Ernst v. City of Chicago, 837 F.3d 788 (7th Cir. 2016)