Baylie v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
476 F.3d 522 (2007)
- Written by Nan Futrell, JD
Facts
A class of employees sued the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (the Bank) (defendant) for race, sex, and age discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. A district court de-certified the class but permitted the employees to pursue individual claims. Two remaining employees’ (plaintiffs) claims remained for resolution. The plaintiffs relied on an expert report, compiled during the class action proceedings, concluding that the Bank was less likely to promote black employees than white employees. In making this finding, the expert looked at all non-managerial workers at the Bank during a five-year period. The expert found that overall, workers had a 0.25 probability of being promoted. A regression analysis showed that white employees had a 0.27 probability of being promoted, and black employees had a 0.20 probability of being promoted. This supported a conclusion that the average white worker received an extra promotion once every twentieth year, as compared with the average black worker. The plaintiffs maintained this report was sufficient to make a prima facie showing of individual disparate impact. The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument and granted summary judgment for the Bank. The plaintiffs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Easterbrook, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
