Filed Date: Oct. 7, 2024
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is about enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. On October 7, 2024, the U.S. government brought a lawsuit against the City of Durham, North Carolina, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. In its complaint, the government alleged the following facts: The Durham Fire Department (“FDF”), which is overseen by the city of Durham, used a multiple-choice and written test, the Comprehensive Examination Battery (“CEB”), to screen entry-level firefighter applications. Applicants who scored less than 70% on the CEB did not advance in the screening process. Plaintiff argued that the CEB disproportionately affected black applicants’ employment prospects, even though the CEB was not meaningfully related to the job or otherwise necessary. There was a measurable difference in CEB outcome based on race: Around 37% of black test-takers failed the test, as opposed to around 11% of white test-takers who failed. Plaintiff also alleged that even for applicants who passed, however, there continued to be race-related discrimination: 32% of black applicants who passed the test and were eligible for an in-person interview did not receive one; only 14% of white applicants similarly positioned did not receive an interview invitation. Plaintiff also asserted that the CEB was not job-related, nor consistent with business necessity – even if the CEB were, however, plaintiff also reasoned that alternative selection procedures could have been used. Plaintiff set forth in its complaint that the city of Durham was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (“Title VII”), by engaging in a pattern of employment discrimination against black applicants. Plaintiff sought a court order mandating the following: that Durham no longer use written tests for entry-level firefighter positions if they have disparate racial impact and are not job-related nor otherwise do not meet the requirements of Title VII; provide remedial relief to people who had suffered individual loss as a result of the discrimination alleged in the complaint; and adopt any other non-discriminatory measures to correct the present effects of its discriminatory policies.
On the same day, the parties filed a joint motion for provisional approval and entry of consent decree. The parties had jointly negotiated a consent decree to resolve the litigation, which would require: (1) Durham replace the challenged CEB exam with new employment screening practices which comply with Title VII; and (2) Durham provide individual relief to eligible black applicants who were excluded from further consideration as entry-level firefighters due to the CEB. With respect to the first requirement, Durham agreed to not administer any written exam for use in selecting entry-level firefighters without the assent of the U.S. government or court approval, and to hire a Test Developer to explore other selection devices that would reduce or eliminate disparate racial impact on applicants. With respect to the second requirement, Durham agreed to pay $980,000 into a settlement fund, which would be used to compensate eligible claimants. A copy of the proposed consent decree is available on the Clearinghouse website. The parties asked the court to provisionally approve that agreement, to schedule a Fairness Hearing, and stay all deadlines in the litigation pending determination on the consent decree.
The matter was assigned to Judge Thomas D. Schroeder.
On December 16, 2024, a Motion Hearing was held. While a transcript of that hearing is not available to the Clearinghouse, the court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing, to address whether Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 585 (2009), applied in this matter. In Ricci, which involved a similar Title VII challenge to a written exam requirement for firefighter applicants, set a high standard that there must be a “strong basis in evidence” that without the race-based remedy, the organization would be liable under Title VII.
The American Alliance for Equal Rights, a non-profit member organization focused on racial discrimination issues, filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in opposition to the proposed consent decree and participate in oral arguments. The American Alliance for Equal Rights argued that this case directly implicates their interests, as the government’s theory of disparate-impact liability would force employers to inject race in employment decision-making processes. The court granted the organization leave to file.
The American Alliance for Equal Rights did submit its amicus brief on January 15, 2025. In that amicus brief, the organization argued that Durham currently used a race-neutral test. They argued that the consent decree would require the city to implement a race-based test, and urged the court to avoid granting such a remedy as the organization believed that would itself violate Title VII’s bar on intentional discrimination.
On January 15, 2025, plaintiff submitted the requested brief, on the applicability of Ricci. In that brief, plaintiff argued that (1) Ricci was distinguishable and that the court should be guided by United States v. North Carolina, 80 F.3d 574, 581 (4th Cir. 1999), which set a more lax fair-and-reasonable standard and which is controlling law in the Fourth Circuit, and (2) even if Ricci applied, there was sufficiently strong basis in evidence to support the U.S.’s prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination and the consent decree as it was formulated.
The court had not yet issued a decision on this matter. The U.S. government changed presidential administrations on January 20, 2025. Following that change in administration, on February 25, 2025, the U.S. government filed notice that it was voluntarily dismissing its claims in this matter. No further update has been made at this time.
Summary Authors
Keren Yi (4/7/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69231805/parties/united-states-v-city-of-durham-north-carolina/
GIVEN, EMILY (North Carolina)
MAYER, REBECCA A. (North Carolina)
LAWS, SARAH (North Carolina)
DICKEY, GILBERT (North Carolina)
DRAPER, PAUL RICKARD (North Carolina)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69231805/united-states-v-city-of-durham-north-carolina/
Last updated July 13, 2025, 10:30 a.m.