## Facts

- A Title VII class of Black Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agents challenged agency-wide racial discrimination affecting promotions (especially GS-11 and above) and related employment practices.
- The DEA employed about 2,000 special agents; as of 1978, about seven percent were Black.
- Plaintiffs alleged discrimination in initial grade assignments, salary, work assignments, supervisory performance evaluations, and discipline, which in turn affected promotion outcomes.
- After a bench trial, the district court found a pattern or practice of discrimination against Black agents, including that promotion criteria such as supervisory evaluations and disciplinary history were themselves infected by discriminatory treatment.
- The district court concluded it could not reliably reconstruct how unbiased evaluations and discipline would have affected particular agents’ promotion chances, and therefore ordered a class-wide back pay remedy along with other equitable relief (including promotion-related measures and protective relief for a testifying agent).
- Defendants appealed the liability finding and the scope and design of relief; plaintiffs cross-appealed the denial of prejudgment interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported a finding that DEA engaged in a Title VII pattern or practice of racial discrimination against Black special agents.
2. Whether class-wide back pay was a permissible remedy where discriminatory practices pervasively contaminated promotion-related decisionmaking.
3. Whether the district court’s back pay distribution formula properly approximated harm and preserved the employer’s opportunity to rebut individual entitlement.
4. Whether promotion goals/timetables, front pay, and a protective injunction for a testifying agent were permissible exercises of equitable authority under Title VII, and whether denial of prejudgment interest was within the court’s discretion.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the district court’s liability determination in full, holding the proof supported a pattern or practice of race discrimination in violation of Title VII.
- The court affirmed the decision to use class-wide back pay in principle, given the pervasive taint in evaluations and discipline and the impracticability of individualized reconstruction.
- The court vacated the specific back pay formula and remanded for reformulation to better match proven injury and permit appropriate rebuttal regarding individual outcomes.
- The court generally approved robust equitable relief to address systemic discrimination, while emphasizing that implementation details must remain tied to the proof and remedial aims.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s prohibition on employment discrimination applies to the federal government and reaches both intentional discrimination and employment barriers that unjustifiably deny equal opportunity.
- In a pattern-or-practice case, statistical and structural evidence may support an inference of systemic discrimination, shifting to the employer a burden to rebut the inference or show lack of harm as to particular individuals.
- When discriminatory practices pervasively infect promotion criteria and decision processes, courts may use class-wide remedial mechanisms, including aggregate back pay, because individualized reconstruction can be unworkable.
- Even where exact reconstruction is impossible, aggregate remedies must be calibrated to approximate actual loss and preserve fairness, including reasonable opportunities for the employer to contest individual entitlement where feasible.
- After a finding of systemic discrimination, courts may order forward-looking equitable relief (including promotion-related measures and interim compensation) to eliminate the effects of prior discrimination and restore equal employment opportunity.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld findings that DEA engaged in systemic Title VII discrimination against Black special agents and approved class-wide back pay as an appropriate response to a decision process tainted by biased evaluations and discipline, but required the back pay formula to be reworked on remand to better reflect proven harm and procedural fairness.


Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1984)