## Facts

- Missouri Pacific Railroad Company maintained an absolute policy, in effect since 1948, refusing to consider for employment any person convicted of any crime other than a minor traffic offense.
- Buck Green, a Black applicant, applied for a clerk position at the company’s St. Louis personnel office on September 29, 1970.
- Green disclosed a December 1967 conviction for refusing military induction and that he served about 21 months in prison before parole in July 1970.
- A personnel officer rejected Green solely because of his conviction and prison record under the company’s blanket policy.
- Green filed an EEOC charge; after a reasonable-cause finding and failed conciliation, he received a right-to-sue letter and timely sued.
- The district court, after a bench trial, denied relief to Green and a certified class of Black applicants rejected at the company’s St. Louis general office because of the conviction policy.
- Application data showed Black applicants were rejected for convictions at a substantially higher rate than White applicants (approximately 5.3% vs. 2.23% during the relevant period).

## Issues

1. Whether the employer’s absolute conviction-exclusion policy violated Title VII because it disproportionately disqualified Black applicants.
2. Whether the employer proved the policy was job related and justified by business necessity.
3. Whether the district court properly limited the certified class and what further proceedings were required for class relief.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the district court in significant part and remanded.
- It held the blanket policy disqualified Black applicants at a substantially higher rate, establishing a prima facie disparate impact under Title VII.
- It held the employer failed to justify an across-the-board conviction bar as a business necessity because it did not consider the offense’s nature, its recency, or its relation to the job.
- It required abandonment of the absolute bar and use of more tailored, job-related criteria; implementation and scope of class relief were left for the district court on remand.

## Legal Principles

- A facially neutral hiring criterion violates Title VII if it has a substantial disparate impact on a protected group and the employer cannot show the criterion is job related and consistent with business necessity.
- After a plaintiff shows disparate impact, the employer bears the burden to demonstrate business necessity for the challenged practice.
- Criminal conviction history may be considered in hiring, but an undifferentiated, categorical exclusion of all applicants with any non-traffic conviction is generally not justified absent a demonstrated link to specific job requirements.
- A defensible conviction-screening practice should account for the nature and gravity of the offense, the time elapsed since conviction or completion of sentence, and the nature of the position sought.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit held that an employer’s blanket refusal to hire anyone with a non-traffic criminal conviction violated Title VII when it disproportionately excluded Black applicants and was not supported by a job-related business-necessity showing, and it remanded for proceedings to implement appropriate relief.


Green v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 523 F.2d 1290 (8th Cir. 1975)