## Facts

- Clara Watson, an African-American bank teller at Fort Worth Bank & Trust, sought promotion to supervisory positions four times.
- Each time, the bank selected white applicants instead of Watson.
- The bank lacked precise, formal promotion criteria and relied largely on the subjective judgments of white supervisors familiar with candidates and job duties.
- After pursuing administrative remedies, Watson sued in federal court alleging Title VII violations based on the bank’s promotion practices, asserting discrimination against Black employees generally and against her individually.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII disparate-impact analysis applies to subjective or discretionary promotion systems, not only to objective tests or fixed criteria.
2. What evidentiary and burden-allocation rules govern disparate-impact challenges to subjective employment practices.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that disparate-impact analysis may be applied to subjective or discretionary promotion systems.
- The Court required plaintiffs to identify the specific challenged employment practice and to support a prima facie showing of adverse impact, typically with statistical evidence.
- Upon a prima facie showing, the employer must produce evidence that the practice is job related for the position and consistent with business necessity.
- The plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of persuasion and may prevail by showing less discriminatory alternatives that would serve the employer’s legitimate needs.
- The Court cautioned that courts should demand careful statistical proof and attention to the relevant labor pool and decision process to avoid transforming routine personnel decisions into automatic litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Disparate-impact liability under Title VII is not limited to objective, standardized selection devices; subjective decisionmaking may be challenged when it disproportionately excludes protected groups.
- A disparate-impact plaintiff must (1) identify the specific employment practice being challenged and (2) show that it causes a significant adverse impact on a protected group.
- If a prima facie disparate impact is shown, the employer must produce evidence of job-relatedness and business necessity for the challenged practice, including when the practice is discretionary.
- The plaintiff may rebut the employer’s justification, including by demonstrating available alternatives with less adverse impact that satisfy the employer’s legitimate needs.
- Courts should police the rigor of statistical proof and the framing of the challenged practice to maintain administrable limits on disparate-impact claims.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Title VII’s disparate-impact framework reaches subjective promotion practices, vacated the contrary Fifth Circuit ruling, and remanded for further proceedings applying disparate-impact standards, including identification of the challenged practice, statistical proof of adverse impact, and business-necessity justification.


Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Tr., 487 U.S. 977 (1988)