## Facts

- In 1983, the City of Cleveland used a written and physical capabilities examination to rank applicants for entry-level firefighter positions and hired in rank order.
- A class of female applicants who were not hired challenged the exam as disproportionately excluding women.
- Plaintiffs alleged (1) intentional sex discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and (2) disparate impact under Title VII, attacking both the components of the exam and rank-order use of scores.
- Plaintiffs argued the physical testing emphasized traits in which men tend to score higher (e.g., speed and strength) and did not measure traits they claimed were more relevant (e.g., stamina/endurance) or otherwise did not reflect job requirements.
- The City defended the exam as job-related and supported by content, construct, and criterion-related validation studies, including evidence of correlation between higher scores and better job performance.
- The district court directed a verdict for the City on the § 1983 claim, then (after a bench trial) entered judgment for the City on Title VII, finding the exam sufficiently validated and no less discriminatory, equally effective alternative proven; it also excluded certain testimony from women firefighters.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit plaintiffs’ § 1983 intentional sex discrimination claim to a jury.
2. Whether the district court misapplied Title VII disparate impact burden-shifting, including by using a “lighter burden” rationale for public-safety jobs associated with Spurlock.
3. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding the 1983 firefighter exam job-related and properly validated.
4. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding plaintiffs failed to prove a less discriminatory, equally effective alternative selection method.
5. Whether exclusion of certain testimony from women firefighters was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed in full.
- The directed verdict on the § 1983 claim was affirmed because plaintiffs did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find discriminatory purpose, as opposed to disparate impact.
- The evidentiary ruling excluding certain testimony from women firefighters was affirmed as not reversible error.
- On Title VII, the court upheld the district court’s use of a public-safety rationale (Spurlock) and concluded the burden framework was not misallocated in a way that affected the outcome.
- The finding that the exam was job-related and validated (including support for rank-order hiring based on score–performance correlation) was not clearly erroneous.
- The finding that plaintiffs failed to prove a workable, less discriminatory alternative that would meet the City’s legitimate objectives was not clearly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- A § 1983 sex-discrimination claim requires proof of intentional discrimination; disparate impact alone does not establish discriminatory purpose.
- In Title VII disparate impact cases, after a prima facie showing of adverse impact, the employer must justify the challenged practice as job-related and consistent with business necessity; plaintiffs may then prevail by proving an available, equally effective alternative with less adverse impact.
- For safety-sensitive public employment, courts may accept a reduced evidentiary showing of job-relatedness compared with non-safety contexts, given the risks of hiring unqualified personnel.
- Professional validation evidence (content, construct, and criterion-related validation), coupled with evidence linking higher scores to better job performance, can support job-relatedness and the use of rank-order selection.
- To defeat a validated selection procedure, plaintiffs must identify a specific, feasible alternative that would meet the employer’s legitimate needs while materially reducing adverse impact.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Cleveland’s 1983 firefighter selection exam and rank-order hiring, finding no proof of intentional discrimination under § 1983, sufficient validation of job-relatedness under Title VII (including in a public-safety context), no reversible evidentiary error, and no showing of a less discriminatory, equally effective alternative.


Zamlen v. City of Cleveland, 906 F.2d 209 (6th Cir. 1990)