## Facts

- Donna Harper worked as a part-time reservations sales agent in Trans World Airlines, Inc.’s (TWA) St. Louis reservations department starting in 1969.
- TWA maintained a written “no-spouse” policy barring spouses from working in the same department without prior written approval.
- Under the policy, if two employees in the same department married, they had 30 days to elect that one spouse would transfer, take a leave of absence, or resign; if no election was made, the spouse with less seniority would be discharged.
- In 1971, Harper married a co-worker in the same department who had greater seniority; the couple sought approval to remain together but did not obtain it and did not timely elect an alternative.
- TWA discharged Harper as the less senior spouse pursuant to the policy.
- Evidence showed the policy had been applied to five other couples; in four instances the wife left employment.
- Other evidence indicated women were not generally disadvantaged at TWA’s St. Louis operation, including significant female representation in higher-earning positions and no showing of sex-based disparities in hiring or compensation.

## Issues

1. Whether TWA’s facially neutral no-spouse policy constituted intentional sex discrimination under Title VII.
2. Whether the policy violated Title VII under a disparate-impact theory by disproportionately causing women to lose employment.
3. Whether, absent proof of disparate impact, TWA was required to justify the policy as a business necessity.

## Decision

- The court affirmed judgment for TWA after a bench trial.
- The court held Harper failed to prove the no-spouse policy had a discriminatory effect on women sufficient to establish a prima facie disparate-impact case.
- The court found no evidence the policy was adopted or enforced with discriminatory intent.
- Because Harper did not establish disparate impact, the court did not require TWA to prove business necessity.

## Legal Principles

- A facially neutral employment policy does not violate Title VII on a sex-discrimination theory without substantial evidence that the policy disproportionately and adversely affects one sex.
- Disparate-impact claims require probative evidence—often statistical evidence—showing a meaningful disproportionate effect; a very small sample of prior applications may be insufficient to establish disparate impact.
- Generalized assumptions about societal wage differences or marital decision-making are inadequate to prove disparate impact without employer-specific evidence demonstrating that the challenged practice predictably disadvantages the protected group.
- If a plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie disparate-impact case, the employer is not required to justify the practice as a business necessity.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld TWA’s no-spouse policy as applied to Harper because the policy was facially neutral, there was no showing of discriminatory intent, and Harper failed to present substantial evidence that the rule caused women to lose employment at a meaningfully higher rate than men.


Harper v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 525 F.2d 409 (8th Cir. 1975)