Palmer v. Shultz; Cooper v. Shultz

Summary

This memorandum opinion addresses consolidated Title VII class actions alleging sex discrimination against female Foreign Service Officers and applicants in Department of State employment practices. On remand from the D.C. Circuit, the district court evaluates claims involving promotions, evaluations, assignments, awards, and initial cone assignments, including statistical evidence concerning disparate treatment and disparate impact.

Holdings

1. The plaintiffs established a Title VII violation because women in classes 1 through 5 received disproportionately few Superior Honor Awards during 1976 through 1983, and the defendant failed to rebut the statistically significant disparity.
2. The plaintiffs established a Title VII disparate-impact violation because the political functional-field portion of the Foreign Service entrance examination caused women to be overassigned to the consular cone and underassigned to the political cone, and the defendant failed to show that the examination was job related.
3. The plaintiffs established a prima facie Title VII violation in the assignment of women to Deputy Chief of Mission positions, and the defendant failed to rebut the statistical disparity.
4. The plaintiffs established a Title VII violation based on the disproportionate assignment of women in classes 4, 5, and 7 to down-stretch positions and the underassignment of women to stretch positions during 1976 through 1981.
5. The plaintiffs established a Title VII violation because women in the political, economic, and administrative cones were disproportionately assigned to out-of-cone consular positions.
6. The plaintiffs established a Title VII violation because women in the political and consular cones were disproportionately underassigned to out-of-cone program-direction positions.
7. The plaintiffs established a Title VII violation because women in classes 5 and 6 received statistically significantly lower potential ratings in 1977, and the defendant failed to rebut the disparity.
8. The plaintiffs did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that women were discriminated against in promotions from class 5 to class 4 during 1976 through 1983.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiffs established a Title VII violation in the award of Superior Honor Awards to female Foreign Service Officers.
2. Whether the political functional-field portion of the Foreign Service entrance examination had a disparate impact on women in initial cone assignments.
3. Whether the statistical evidence established sex discrimination in Deputy Chief of Mission assignments.
4. Whether the evidence established sex discrimination in stretch and down-stretch assignments.
5. Whether the evidence established sex discrimination in out-of-cone assignments to consular and program-direction positions.
6. Whether the evidence established sex discrimination in 1977 potential evaluations.
7. Whether women were discriminated against in promotions from class 5 to class 4 during 1976 through 1983.

Disposition

other