## Facts

- The Boston Police Department (BPD) implemented mandatory annual hair-sample drug testing for officers, cadets, and applicants, screening for multiple drugs including cocaine.
- Psychemedics Corporation performed the hair testing; an initial cocaine positive triggered medical review and an option for additional confirmatory testing.
- A positive result not medically cleared generally led to termination, with an alternative of rehabilitation and an unpaid suspension in some cases.
- From 1999–2006, 10,835 white individuals were tested and 30 tested positive for cocaine; 4,222 Black individuals were tested and 55 tested positive.
- The statistical disparity reflected 7.148 standard deviations, making random chance an implausible explanation on the record.
- Plaintiffs (mostly Black BPD officers/cadets and one applicant) alleged the program produced racially skewed results; they also presented scientific evidence that hair characteristics and hair-product use associated with race can increase absorption/retention of cocaine or contaminants, increasing false positives for Black individuals.
- Plaintiffs included individuals terminated after positive tests, one individual retained after rehabilitation, and one applicant whose conditional offer was rescinded after a positive test.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs established a prima facie Title VII disparate-impact case based on statistical disparities (and related scientific evidence) tied to BPD’s hair-testing practice, such that summary judgment for the City was improper.
2. Whether BPD’s testing and disciplinary procedures deprived plaintiffs of property interests in employment without constitutionally sufficient procedural due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3. Whether plaintiffs produced evidence that adverse actions were taken because of actual or perceived drug addiction in violation of the ADA, rather than because of positive cocaine test results.

## Decision

- The court held plaintiffs established a prima facie disparate-impact case under Title VII beyond reasonable dispute.
- The court vacated summary judgment for the City on the Title VII disparate-impact claim and remanded for further proceedings on business necessity and less-discriminatory alternatives.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the City on the § 1983 procedural due process claims.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the City on the ADA claims.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII disparate-impact prima facie case may be established by statistically significant racial disparities linked to a specific employment practice; plaintiffs need not also prove “practical significance” at the prima facie stage.
- Evidence explaining a plausible mechanism by which an employment practice causes a racial disparity can support the causal link required for disparate-impact proof.
- An employer’s legitimate need for a challenged practice addresses Title VII’s business-necessity and alternatives inquiries and does not defeat a prima facie showing.
- Procedural due process focuses on notice and an opportunity to contest the deprivation; access to confirmatory testing, internal review, and grievance procedures can satisfy constitutional requirements.
- ADA liability requires evidence that the adverse action was taken because of an actual or perceived disability (e.g., addiction), not merely because the employee tested positive for illegal drugs.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit ruled that the BPD hair-testing program produced a statistically significant racial disparity sufficient to establish a prima facie Title VII disparate-impact claim, requiring remand for analysis of justification and alternatives, while upholding summary judgment for the City on the procedural due process and ADA claims.


Jones v. City of Bos., 752 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2014)