## Facts

- Chicago administered a written firefighter exam to over 26,000 applicants in 1995.
- The City set 65 as a passing score but created two passing bands: “well qualified” (89–100) and “qualified” (65–88).
- In January 1996, Chicago notified applicants of their category and indicated it would randomly select primarily from the “well qualified” band; the “qualified” band would remain on an eligibility list but was unlikely to be reached.
- From May 1996 through 2002, Chicago selected multiple hiring classes exclusively from the “well qualified” band, effectively using 89 as the cutoff.
- The banding/cutoff produced a racial disparity: the 65–88 group included a substantially higher percentage of Black applicants than the ≥89 group.
- Beginning in March 1997, African-American applicants who scored 65–88 filed EEOC charges and later brought a Title VII disparate-impact suit challenging the City’s repeated hiring selections using the 89 cutoff.

## Issues

1. Under Title VII’s 300-day EEOC charge requirement, may a plaintiff bring a timely disparate-impact claim challenging an employer’s later use of a practice even if a charge challenging the practice’s initial adoption would be untimely?
2. Does each hiring round that applies an allegedly discriminatory cutoff score constitute a separate “unlawful employment practice” for limitations purposes?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Seventh Circuit and remanded.
- The Court held that a plaintiff may timely challenge the later application of an employment practice that allegedly causes disparate impact, even if the practice was adopted outside the limitations period.
- Each time Chicago used the cutoff score to select a new hiring class, it engaged in a separate alleged “unlawful employment practice” for which a timely EEOC charge could be filed.

## Legal Principles

- In disparate-impact cases, Title VII treats the employer’s “use” of a particular employment practice that causes a prohibited disparate impact as an actionable unlawful employment practice.
- The 300-day filing period may run from each discrete use or application of the challenged practice (such as each hiring round applying the cutoff), not solely from the initial decision to adopt the practice.
- A plaintiff need not rely on a general “continuing violation” theory where the statute’s text makes each later use of a practice independently actionable.
- The Court’s ruling addressed timeliness only and did not resolve the merits of whether the cutoff violated Title VII or the scope of available relief.

## Conclusion

Title VII’s limitations period for disparate-impact claims permits timely challenges to an employer’s repeated use of an allegedly discriminatory screening device; each application that produces the alleged disparate impact can start its own filing window.


Lewis v. City of Chicago, 560 U.S. 205 (2010)