Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
United States Supreme Court
422 U.S. 405 (1975)
Albemarle Paper Co. (Albemarle) (defendant), a paper products company, used two general ability tests in making hiring decisions for skilled “lines of progression.” One test measured nonverbal intelligence; the other measured verbal aptitude. Workers within each line of progression were able to move up as they acquired more advanced skills. Incumbents already working in a line were not required to pass the tests to retain their jobs or qualify for promotions within the same line. The tests were not calibrated to measure job relatedness; Albemarle adopted national norms in setting cut-off scores for passage. Before 1964, black employees were expressly excluded from higher-skilled, higher-paying lines of progression. Once Albemarle discontinued that practice and adopted the ability tests, black employees were permitted to transfer to the more skilled progression lines if they passed, but few did. Black employees (plaintiffs) sued Albemarle under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging the testing procedure resulted in racially based disparate impact. Before trial, Albemarle hired an expert to validate the employment tests as job related. The expert created a validation test that examined 10 job groupings representing jobs at the top of the lines of progression. There was no control for different skills required within each line. Of 105 employees in the study, only four were black. The study compared individual employee’s test scores with a subjective ranking given by the employee’s supervisors. The expert conducted statistical analysis designed to show a correlation between each employee’s test scores and the supervisors’ rankings. Albemarle claimed these correlations proved that the professional tests were sufficiently job related to be valid under Title VII, even if they produced a disparate impact. The district court agreed, but a court of appeals reversed. Albemarle sought review by the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
Concurrence (Rehnquist, J.)
Concurrence (Blackmun, J.)
Concurrence (Marshall, J.)
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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. 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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.