Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp.

United States District Court for the District of Colorado · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureTitle VIIemployment discriminationprima facie casestatistical proofdisparate impactdisparate treatmentburden shifting

Facts

Seven named plaintiffs, all black, female, or Hispano-American employees at Martin Marietta's Waterton facility, alleged that the company discriminated in promotions on the basis of race, sex, color, or national origin, and that two plaintiffs suffered retaliation after filing EEOC charges in 1969. Martin Marietta used different promotion systems for salaried, hourly out-of-unit, and hourly in-unit employees, with some promotions based strictly on merit and others on a combination of qualifications and seniority. After broad discovery on remand, both sides presented extensive statistical evidence concerning promotion rates, including disputes over proper data sets, labor pools for hourly-to-salary promotions, and the usefulness of the 4/5ths rule versus tests of statistical significance. The court found that all plaintiffs had sufficient tenure and experience to count as qualified and that, because the claims alleged continuing violations, they were among employees who could have been considered for promotion.

Issue

Whether the named plaintiffs established prima facie Title VII claims that Martin Marietta's promotion policies discriminatorily denied them promotions, and if so, whether Martin Marietta rebutted those claims with legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. The court also had to decide whether any plaintiff proved retaliation under Title VII or intentional discrimination under § 1981.

Rule

In this promotions case, a Title VII plaintiff establishes a prima facie case by showing that the plaintiff was qualified, that the plaintiff was among the class of employees who could have been considered for promotion, and that the employer's practices had a discriminatory impact, either through discriminatory intent or significantly adverse results from facially neutral practices. Statistical proof should be evaluated using the more probative evidence, including relevant labor pools where they exist, and tests of statistical significance may be preferred over the 4/5ths rule where the latter's reliability is effectively undermined. Once a prima facie case is established, the employer rebuts it by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment decision; § 1981 requires proof of discriminatory intent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez, a Latina engineer at Front Range Dynamics in Denver, has worked there for 11 years. She files a Title VII suit alleging that the company's promotion system has long disadvantaged women engineers; she shows she had the experience to be considered and offers statistically significant evidence that female salaried engineers were promoted at markedly lower rates than men during the relevant period.

Under the governing rule from the case, which additional showing is necessary for Nina to establish a prima facie promotions case?

Explanation. In this promotions context, the prima facie showing requires qualification, membership in the class of employees who could have been considered for promotion, and discriminatory impact. Nina already has evidence of qualification and impact, so she must also show she was among the employees who could have been considered. She need not prove she was the best candidate, and explicit discriminatory remarks are not required because impact may be shown through significantly adverse results of facially neutral practices. A prima facie case also does not itself establish liability because the employer may rebut with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. (Derived from Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp. (n.d.).)