that the above or additional allegations are timely and adversely affect blacks as a group at the Defense Mapping Agency. This proof could be most easily established by statistical evidence. However, as recognized by Stallings, supra, plaintiff's own experience with this promotional system is relevant to the issue of whether the system adversely affects blacks.
If plaintiff succeeds with his proof of adverse impact, defendants could avoid a finding that the promotional system of the agency is in violation of Title VII by establishing that any of the promotional procedures which adversely affect blacks are "significantly related to successful job performance" or are otherwise justified by "business necessity." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 28 L. Ed. 2d 158, 91 S. Ct. 849 (1971). If defendants were to fail in establishing justification, plaintiff would have proved a violation of Title VII and could proceed to demonstrate the extent to which this illegal system injured him in the past, in order to establish his back pay award.
Accordingly, it is this 7th day of April, 1978, hereby:
ORDERED that defendants' motion is granted with respect to all alleged incidents of discrimination, excepting the P.D. # 202-70 incident, to the extent that plaintiff presents them as a mere series of disparate treatment claims; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion is denied to the extent that plaintiff has alleged that the system of promotional procedures at the Defense Mapping Agency, under the merit promotion plan, adversely affects blacks and is not significantly related to successful job performance, in violation of Title VII; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that a second pretrial conference is scheduled for April 17, 1978 at 11:00 A.M. Leave is granted for the filing of supplemental pretrial briefs on or before April 14, 1978; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that trial will begin as scheduled on April 21, 1978, in Courtroom No. 4, to run for three days.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.