## Facts

- Black firefighters employed by the City of Atlanta challenged promotion practices within the Bureau of Fire Services under Title VII and related civil-rights statutes.
- Earlier litigation was resolved by a consent decree requiring the City to avoid race discrimination and to use promotional procedures compliant with Title VII; the district court retained jurisdiction to monitor compliance.
- The City used a written examination to promote firefighters to fire lieutenant; an ordinance required professional validation consistent with Title VII.
- The examination produced adverse racial impact; nine of the ten highest scorers were white, and the City conceded adverse impact.
- The City supported the exam with a criterion-related validity study correlating test scores with supervisor performance ratings; after initially low correlations, the City obtained higher correlations by having more experienced supervisors re-rate performance and by addressing potential rating contamination.
- Plaintiffs did not argue the exam was facially racially biased; they attacked the methodology and conclusions of the validation study and argued the City failed to use alternatives with less adverse impact.
- Plaintiffs offered expert testimony criticizing the correlation analysis, but the district court excluded that testimony and credited the City’s validation evidence.
- The district court held the exam properly validated under Title VII and the Uniform Guidelines and rejected the alternatives challenge.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s written promotional examination for fire lieutenant was properly validated under Title VII and the Uniform Guidelines despite concededly adverse racial impact.
2. Whether the district court erred by not requiring the City to adopt alternative selection procedures with less adverse impact.
3. Whether the district court committed reversible error in excluding plaintiffs’ expert testimony attacking the validation study.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held that the City’s evidence supported a finding that the examination was properly validated and met professional standards for criterion-related validity.
- The court upheld the district court’s treatment of expert evidence, including its exclusion of plaintiffs’ expert testimony.
- The court held the City was not required to adopt alternatives because plaintiffs failed to prove specific, equally effective alternative procedures that would reduce adverse impact.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII disparate-impact analysis, an employment selection device with adverse impact may be lawful if it is job-related and consistent with business necessity, including through validation consistent with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.
- A criterion-related validity study may support business necessity when it shows a statistically significant correlation between selection scores and job performance measures, and the factfinder may credit one expert methodology over another.
- Once an employer establishes business necessity through a properly validated procedure, the burden shifts to plaintiffs to identify and demonstrate feasible alternative selection methods that are equally effective and would have less adverse impact.
- Appellate review is deferential to district court fact-finding on technical validity questions and credibility choices among experts absent clear error.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld Atlanta’s firefighter promotion exam because the City demonstrated criterion-related validity sufficient to satisfy Title VII and the Uniform Guidelines, and the plaintiffs did not carry their burden to prove equally effective, less discriminatory alternatives.


Hamer v. City of Atlanta, 872 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir. 1989)