## Facts

- Wards Cove Packing Co. operated Alaskan salmon canneries with two general job categories: lower-paid “cannery” line jobs and higher-paid “noncannery” jobs, many of which were skilled.
- Nonwhite workers (primarily Alaska Natives and Filipinos) predominated in cannery jobs, while white workers predominated in noncannery jobs.
- A class of nonwhite cannery workers challenged multiple employment practices, including separate hiring channels for cannery and noncannery jobs, rehire preferences, and word-of-mouth recruitment.
- Plaintiffs alleged these practices caused a racial concentration of nonwhites in low-paying jobs and whites in higher-paying jobs, in violation of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The district court rejected the Title VII disparate-impact claims, including findings that some cannery hiring occurred through a hiring-hall arrangement involving a predominantly nonwhite union.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part, holding plaintiffs established a prima facie disparate-impact case based largely on statistics showing racial disparities between cannery and noncannery workforces, and it treated “business necessity” as an employer burden once impact was shown.

## Issues

1. What statistical comparison is generally required to establish a prima facie Title VII disparate-impact case for the challenged jobs?
2. After a prima facie disparate-impact showing, does the employer bear the burden of persuasion to prove “business necessity,” or does the ultimate burden of persuasion remain with the plaintiffs?
3. Must disparate-impact plaintiffs identify specific employment practices causing the disparity, rather than relying on overall workforce stratification?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that comparing the percentage of nonwhites in cannery jobs to the percentage of nonwhites in noncannery jobs, standing alone, does not generally establish a prima facie disparate-impact case.
- The Court held the usual comparison is between the racial composition of the at-issue jobs and the racial composition of the qualified population in the relevant labor market.
- The Court held plaintiffs must isolate and identify specific employment practices and show that those practices caused the challenged disparity.
- The Court held that, once an employer produces evidence of a legitimate business justification, the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with plaintiffs to show the justification is a pretext for discrimination.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII disparate-impact claim requires proof that a specific employment practice caused a significant disparate impact; “bottom-line” disparities alone are insufficient.
- Prima facie disparate-impact statistics generally must compare the racial composition of the at-issue positions with the qualified labor pool in the relevant labor market or applicant pool, not merely with other job categories within the same employer.
- In disparate-impact cases, an employer’s obligation after a prima facie showing is to produce evidence of business justification; the burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff.
- A practice is assessed by whether it significantly serves legitimate employment goals; mere rationality or reasonableness does not end the inquiry.

## Conclusion

The Court limited disparate-impact liability by requiring labor-market-based statistical comparisons and a causal link to specific practices, and by placing the ultimate burden on plaintiffs to disprove an employer’s asserted business justification.


Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989)