Watson v. Ft. Worth Bank and Trust

1

• Watson v. Ft. Worth Bank and Trust
• Key Points
• Plaintiffs do not have to show intentional
  discrimination with regard to subjective
  information used for employment decisions. That
  is, subjective information needs to comply with
  the requirement set forth in Griggs regarding
  job-relatedness.
• When an employer's "...undisciplined system of
  subjective decision-making has precisely the
  same effects as a system perverted by intentional
  discrimination, it is difficult to see why Title
  VII" should not apply"
• Therefore, subjective employment practices can
  be challenged under disparate impact rule
• B) A statistical difference may not be enough to
  establish a prima facie case
• C) Majority of the Court required the plaintiff
  to identify the specific employment practice that
  caused
• the statistical disparity between
  "protected" and "unprotected" group

2
Watson v. Ft. Worth Bank and Trust (cont.)
Once the employer has "met its burden of
producing evidence that its employment practices
are based on legitimate business reasons, the
plaintiff must show" that there are other
selection methods available that would serve the
employer's legitimate interests and that would
not have adverse impact "Our cases make it
clear that employers are not required, even when
defending standardizes or objective tests, to
introduce formal 'validation studies' showing
that particular criteria predict actual
on-the-job performance" "...formal validation
techniques endorsed by the EEOC in its Uniform
Guidelines may sometimes not be effective in
measuring the job-relatedness of subjective
selection procedures" "...It is self-evident
that many jobs, for example those involving
managerial responsibilities, require personal
qualities that have never been considered
amenable to standardized testing...courts are
generally less competent than employers to
restructure business practices, and unless
mandated to do so by Congress, they should not
attempt it"