From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Adams v. City of Chicago

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
469 F.3d 609 (2006)

Written by Nan Futrell, JD

Facts

A group of black and Hispanic law enforcement officers (plaintiffs) employed by the City of Chicago (the City) (defendant) alleged the City’s methods for promoting officers created disparate-impact discrimination against minorities in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The City used a written examination, created by an outside consultant in 1994, to make officer-to-sergeant promotion decisions in August 1994, March 1996, and February 1997. In January 1997, a city-appointed task force recommended that in the future, 30 percent of officer-to-sergeant promotions be based on merit, meaning officers’ job performance as evaluated by their supervisors. The City did not follow this recommendation in making the February 1997 officer-to-sergeant promotions. Beginning in 1989, the City considered merit in filling 20 percent of its detective positions. Beginning in 1998, the City made 30 percent of its officer-to-sergeant and sergeant-to-lieutenant promotions merit based. The plaintiffs argued that because the City had considered merit in filling detective positions since 1989, and because the 1997 task force had recommended future merit-based officer-to-sergeant promotions, the City could have used merit in making 30 percent of its 1997 officer-to-sergeant promotions. [The district court granted summary judgment for the City.] The plaintiffs appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Manion, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
The procedural disposition (e.g., reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Williams, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 967,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.
Unlock this case brief Read our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.
Learn about our approach Read more about Quimbee

Here's why 967,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Here's why 967,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,007 casebooks
Uniform format for every case brief
Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

Start your free 7-day trial