On November 23, 1988, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the New Jersey State Department of Personnel under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII") in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Department of Justice asked the court for injunctive and monetary relief, alleging that the defendant had violated Title VII, by discriminating against blacks and women in the hiring for entry-level positions in state law enforcement and corrections. It was also alleged that women were passed over for promotions in State correction officer jobs on the basis of their gender.

The plaintiff alleges that the State administered unlawful written and physical performance examinations and other procedures in processing and selecting candidates for appointment to State law enforcement positions, as well as county and municipal positions that are covered by State civil service laws. It was found that race and gender played statistically significant differences in hiring practices. A study was performed on those applicants with passing performance on the written examination and physical performance test ("PPT"). In an indiscriminant process there would be no disparities across gender or race lines, in terms of applicants hired; however, the study found that there were disparate proportions of passing applicants hired that were black or female, when considering each respective test.

On February 17, 1994, the District Court (Judge William G. Bassler) entered a Consent Decree. 2,200 objections were raised regarding the fairness of this decree, all categories were concluded to be invalid, and the original consent decree was upheld. The consent decree identified three groups of victims who were entitled to relief: (1) blacks who scored too low on the written exam to be considered for appointment; (2) women who failed the police officer PPT; and (3) women who were passed over for appointment to State correction officer jobs on the basis of their gender. Victims of disparate impact were entitled to appointment to jobs and receiving back pay, retroactive pension, and retroactive seniority for those positions.

We have no further information on this case.

Jane Wu - 11/04/2007


compress summary