## Facts

- The United States sued the Town of Cicero, Illinois under Title VII, challenging municipal employment residency ordinances as unlawfully excluding Black applicants.
- Cicero had a near-total absence of Black residents and an extremely small Black labor force (about 0.05%), despite being in Cook County, whose workforce was about 20.7% Black.
- Cicero bordered Chicago neighborhoods with large Black populations, and private employers in Cicero reported a significant Black workforce.
- Cicero had 374 full-time municipal employees, none of whom were Black; historically, the town had never hired a Black municipal employee.
- Cicero enacted ordinances requiring pre-application residency: (1) at least three years for police and firefighter applicants, and (2) at least one year for other municipal applicants.
- Cicero asserted the ordinances served non-discriminatory goals, including local familiarity, local economic benefits, greater employee commitment, and improved public safety and resident morale for police/fire.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court applied the correct Title VII disparate-impact framework to Cicero’s facially neutral residency ordinances when denying a preliminary injunction.
2. Whether the government showed a sufficient likelihood of success and equitable entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief against enforcement of the ordinances.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying the preliminary injunction and remanded.
- The court held the district court improperly treated facial neutrality as dispositive and failed to assess whether the ordinances had a disparate racial impact under Title VII.
- The court indicated the government’s statistical showing supported a strong prima facie disparate-impact case and that Cicero’s justifications required scrutiny for job-related necessity, including consideration of less discriminatory alternatives.
- The court directed reconsideration of the preliminary-injunction request under the proper disparate-impact and equitable standards.

## Legal Principles

- Under Title VII, a facially neutral employment practice may be unlawful if it disproportionately excludes members of a protected class and is not justified by business necessity.
- Disparate-impact analysis generally requires: (1) a prima facie showing of disproportionate adverse impact, (2) an employer showing of job-related necessity/legitimate operational need, and (3) an opportunity for the plaintiff to show pretext or feasible less discriminatory alternatives.
- A court evaluating a preliminary injunction must properly assess likelihood of success on the merits and equitable factors; where an employment barrier likely violates Title VII, continued enforcement can constitute irreparable harm to excluded applicants.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that Title VII requires inquiry into the real-world exclusionary effects of Cicero’s residency requirements and the necessity of those requirements, vacated the denial of a preliminary injunction, and remanded for reconsideration under the correct disparate-impact framework and injunction standards.


United States v. Town of Cicero, 786 F.2d 331 (7th Cir. 1986)