California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI)
2502. Disparate Impact - Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, § 12940(a))
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant] had [an employment practice/a selection policy] that wrongfully discriminated against [him/her]. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1. That [name of defendant] was [an employer/[other covered entity]];
2. That [name of plaintiff] [was an employee of [name of defendant]/applied to [name of defendant] for a job/[other covered relationship to defendant]];
3. That [name of defendant] had [an employment practice of [describe practice]/a selection policy of [describe policy]] that had a disproportionate adverse effect on [describe protected group—for example, persons over the age of 40];
4. That [name of plaintiff] is [protected status];
5. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
6. That [name of defendant]'s [employment practice/selection policy] was a substantial factor in causing [name of plaintiff]'s harm.
Directions for Use
This instruction is intended for disparate impact employment discrimination claims. Disparate impact occurs when an employer has an employment practice that appears neutral but has an adverse impact on members of a protected group and cannot be justified by business necessity.
Uncontested elements should be deleted from this instruction.
If element 1 is given, the court may need to instruct the jury on the statutory definition of "employer" under the FEHA. Other covered entities under the FEHA include labor organizations, employment agencies, and apprenticeship training programs. (See Gov. Code, § 12940(a)-(d).)
The court should consider instructing the jury on the meaning of "adverse impact," tailored to the facts of the case and the applicable law.
Sources and Authority
Government Code section 12940(a) provides that it is an unlawful employment practice "[f]or an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment."
Government Code section 12941.1 expresses the Legislature's rejection of the opinion in Marks v. Loral Corp. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 30 [68 Cal.Rptr.2d 1] and states, in part: "The Legislature declares its intent that the use of salary as the basis for differentiating between employees when terminating employment may be found to constitute age discrimination if use of that criterion adversely impacts older workers as a group, and further declares its intent that the disparate impact theory of proof may be used in claims of age discrimination."
The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission's regulations state: "Where an employer or other covered entity has a facially neutral practice which has an adverse impact (i.e., is discriminatory in effect), the employer or other covered entity must prove that there exists an overriding legitimate business purpose such that the practice is necessary to the safe and efficient operation of the business and that the challenged practice effectively fulfills the business purpose it is supposed to serve. The practice may still be impermissible where it is shown that there exists an alternative practice which would accomplish the business purpose equally well with a lesser discriminatory impact." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7286.7(b).)
The California Fair Employment and Housing Commission's regulations state: "Any policy or practice of an employer or other covered entity which has an adverse impact on employment opportunities of individuals on a basis enumerated in the Act is unlawful unless the policy or practice is job-related. . . . A testing device or other means of selection which is facially neutral, but which has an adverse impact (as described in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (29 CFR 1607 (1978)) upon persons on a basis enumerated in the Act, is permissible only upon a showing that the selection practice is sufficiently related to an essential function of the job in question to warrant its use." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7287.4(a), (e).)
"Prohibited discrimination may . . . be found on a theory of disparate impact, i.e., that regardless of motive, a facially neutral employer practice or policy, bearing no manifest relationship to job requirements, in fact had a disproportionate adverse effect on members of the protected class." (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354, fn. 20 [100 Cal.Rptr.2d 352, 8 P.3d 1089], internal citations omitted.)
"A 'disparate impact' plaintiff . . . may prevail without proving intentional discrimination . . . [However,] a disparate impact plaintiff 'must not merely prove circumstances raising an inference of discriminatory impact; he must prove the discriminatory impact at issue.' " (Ibarbia v. Regents of the University of California (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 1318, 1329-1330 [237 Cal.Rptr. 92], quoting Lowe v. City of Monrovia (9th Cir. 1985) 775 F.2d 998, 1004.)
" 'To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that the facially neutral employment practice had a significantly discriminatory impact. If that showing is made, the employer must then demonstrate that "any given requirement [has] a manifest relationship to the employment in question," in order to avoid a finding of discrimination . . . Even in such a case, however, the plaintiff may prevail, if he shows that the employer was using the practice as a mere pretext for discrimination.' " (City and County of San Francisco v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 976, 985 [236 Cal.Rptr. 716], quoting Connecticut v. Teal (1982) 457 U.S. 440, 446- 447 [102 S.Ct. 2525, 73 L.Ed.2d 130], internal citation omitted.)
Under federal title VII, a plaintiff may establish an unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact in one of two ways: (1) the plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of a protected status, and the defendant "fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity"; or (2) the plaintiff demonstrates that there is an alternative employment practice with less adverse impact, and the defendant "refuses to adopt such alternative employment practice." (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A).)
This instruction has been drafted with the understanding that disparate impact under FEHA is an emerging area of law.
1 Wrongful Employment Termination Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 2000) Discrimination Claims, § 2.65, pp. 54-55
2 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 41, Substantive Requirements Under Equal Employment Opportunity Laws, § 41.21 (Matthew Bender)
3 Wilcox, California Employment Law, Ch. 43, Civil Actions Under Equal Employment Opportunity Laws, § 43.01[c] (Matthew Bender)
11 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 115, Civil Rights: Employment Discrimination, § 115.23 (Matthew Bender)
Bancroft-Whitney's California Civil Practice: Employment Litigation (1993) Discrimination in Employment, § 2.23, pp. 35-37
(New September 2003)