Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 February 1988
• Docket Number: No. 86-1447,86-1447
• Parties: 45 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 698, 45 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,566, 56 USLW 2339 Crystal CHAMBERS, in her own Behalf and in behalf of her minor daughter, Ruth Chambers, Appellants, v. The OMAHA GIRLS CLUB, INC., a Nebraska Corporation; Mary Heng-Braun, Director; Mrs. Harold W. Andersen, and 80 other members of the Board of Directors, both individually and in their official capacities; the Omaha World Herald, a Nebraska Corporation; Harold W. Andersen, President; John Gottschalk, Vice President; Woodson Howe, Vice President, both individually and in their official capacities; the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission; Lawrence Myers, Executive Director; Daniel Wherry, Chairman; Carmen Gottschalk, Commissioner; Rose Marie Brandt, Commissioner; Peggy Schmidt, Commissioner; Frances Dunson, Commissioner; Patricia Dorwart, Commissioner; Susan Gorrea, Commissioner; Paul Douglas, former Attorney General of Nebraska; Charles Thone, former Governor of Nebraska, all both individually and in their official capacities; Allan Lozier; Clarence Barbee; N.P. Dodge, Jr.; Dennis R. Woods; Dana Bradford, III; Richard Kizer; Kermit Brashear, II; Eileen Wirth, members of the Board; Bobbie Kerrigan, Deputy Director, and the active members of the Girls Club Board, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 697

834 F.2d 697

45 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 698,

45 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,566, 56 USLW 2339

Crystal CHAMBERS, in her own Behalf and in behalf of her minor daughter, Ruth Chambers, Appellants, v. The OMAHA GIRLS CLUB, INC., a Nebraska Corporation; Mary

Heng-Braun, Director; Mrs. Harold W. Andersen, and 80 other

members of the Board of Directors, both individually and in

their official capacities; the Omaha World Herald, a

Nebraska Corporation; Harold W. Andersen, President; John

Gottschalk, Vice President; Woodson Howe, Vice President,

both individually and in their official capacities; the

Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission; Lawrence Myers,

Executive Director; Daniel Wherry, Chairman; Carmen

Gottschalk, Commissioner; Rose Marie Brandt, Commissioner;

Peggy Schmidt, Commissioner; Frances Dunson, Commissioner;

Patricia Dorwart, Commissioner; Susan Gorrea, Commissioner;

Paul Douglas, former Attorney General of Nebraska; Charles

Thone, former Governor of Nebraska, all both individually

and in their official capacities; Allan Lozier; Clarence

Barbee; N.P. Dodge, Jr.; Dennis R. Woods; Dana Bradford,

III; Richard Kizer; Kermit Brashear, II; Eileen Wirth,

members of the Board; Bobbie Kerrigan, Deputy Director, and

the active members of the Girls Club Board, Appellees.

No. 86-1447.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted March 9, 1987.

Decided Dec. 3, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1988.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Feb. 25, 1988.

Mary Kay Green, Omaha, Neb., for appellant.

Robert D. Mullin, Omaha, Neb., for Omaha Girl's Club.

Sharon Lindgren, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, Neb. for other appellees.

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Crystal Chambers appeals the district court's orders and judgment disposing of her civil rights, Title VII employment discrimination, and pendent state law claims. Chambers' claims arise from her dismissal as an employee at the Omaha Girls Club on account of her being single and pregnant in violation of the Club's "role model rule." The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Club's role model rule is an employment practice that is consistent with Title VII because it is justifiable as a business necessity or a bona fide occupational qualification.

I

The Omaha Girls Club is a private, non-profit corporation that offers programs designed to assist young girls between the ages of eight and eighteen to maximize their life opportunities. ¹ Among the Club's many activities are programs directed at pregnancy prevention. The Club serves 1,500 members, ninety percent of them black, at its North Omaha facility and 500 members, fifty to sixty percent of them black, at its South Omaha facility. A substantial number of youngsters who are not Club members also participate in its programs. The Club employs thirty to thirty-five persons at its two facilities; all of the The Club's approach to fulfilling its mission emphasizes the development of close contacts and the building of relationships between the girls and the Club's staff members. Toward this end, staff members are trained and expected to act as role models for the girls, with the intent that the girls will seek to emulate their behavior. The Club formulated its "role model rule" banning single parent pregnancies among its staff members in pursuit of this role model approach. ²

non-administrative personnel at the North Omaha facility are black, and fifty to sixty percent of the personnel at the South Omaha facility are black.

Chambers, a black single woman, was employed by the Club as an arts and crafts instructor at the Club's North Omaha facility. She became pregnant and informed her supervisor of that fact. Subsequently, she received a letter notifying her that because of her pregnancy her employment was to be terminated. Shortly after her termination, Chambers filed charges with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC) alleging discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status. The NEOC found no reasonable cause to believe that unlawful employment discrimination had occurred. Chambers ³ then brought this action in the district court seeking injunctions and damages. ⁴

Chambers ultimately alleged, after a series of amendments to her complaint, that her rights under the first, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments had been violated. She asserted civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Secs. 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988, and state law claims for bad faith discharge, defamation, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intimidation, and conspiracy to deprive her of her livelihood. She also alleged violations of Title VII. Chambers named as defendants numerous organizations and individuals associated with those organizations: the Club, its director, deputy director, and board of directors; the Omaha World Herald newspaper and three of its officers; the NEOC, its executive director, and its commissioners; Charles Thone, the Governor of Nebraska; and Paul Douglas, the Attorney General of Nebraska. ⁵

On October 19, 1983, the district court ⁶ issued an order dismissing Chambers' section

                1983 claim against the Club, 7 finding the NEOC absolutely immune from liability under section 1983, dismissing Governor Thone and Attorney General Douglas for failure to state a claim against them, and dismissing all of the state law claims except the conspiracy and intimidation claims.  On November 7, 1985, the district court entered an order granting the motion of the Omaha World Herald for summary judgment on the section 1985(3) and state conspiracy claims against it.  On January 6, 1986, the matter went to trial.  The claims remaining against the Club at the time of trial included:  (1) conspiracy to deprive Chambers of her rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3), (2) conspiracy in violation of state law, (3) intentional race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, and (4) a combination of race and sex discrimination in the course of employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a). 8   At the close of the plaintiff's case the court directed a verdict in favor of the Club on the section 1985(3), section 1981, and state conspiracy claims.  The court explained its grounds for directing the verdict and announced its judgment in favor of the Club on the Title VII claims in its order of February 11, 1986.    Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club, 629 F.Supp. 925 (D.Neb.1986)
                

II

We turn first to the district court's determination of the Title VII questions. The district court examined Chambers' allegations of employment discrimination ⁹ in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(a) under both the disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. ¹⁰ We review in turn the court's conclusions and Chambers' arguments under each of these theories.

A

A plaintiff seeking to prove discrimination under the disparate impact theory must show that a facially neutral employment practice has a significant adverse impact on members of a protected minority group. The burden then shifts to the employer to show that the practice has a manifest relationship to the employment in question and is justifiable on the ground of Establishing a business necessity defense presents an employer with a "heavy burden." Hawkins v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 697 F.2d 810, 815 (8th Cir.1983). Business necessity exists only if the challenged employment practice has " ' "a manifest relationship to the employment in question." ' " Id. (quoting Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 329, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 2725, 53 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977) (quoting Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 432, 91 S.Ct. 849, 854, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971))). The employer must demonstrate that there is a " 'compelling need * * * to maintain that practice,' " and the practice cannot be justified by " 'routine business considerations.' " Id. (quoting Kirby v. Colony Furniture Co., 613 F.2d 696, 706 n. 6 (8th Cir.1980)); see also EEOC v. Rath Packing Co., 787 F.2d 318, 331 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 307, 93 L.Ed.2d 282 (1986). Moreover, the employer may be required to show that the challenged employment practice is " 'necessary to safe and efficient job performance,' " McCosh v. City of Grand Forks, 628 F.2d 1058, 1062 (8th Cir.1980) (quoting Dothard, 433 U.S. at 332 n. 14, 97 S.Ct. at 2728 n. 14); see also Rath Packing Co., 787 F.2d at 328; Donnell v. General Motors Corp., 576 F.2d 1292, 1299 (8th Cir.1978), or that the employer's goals are "significantly served by" the practice. New York City Transit Auth. v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568, 587 n. 31, 99 S.Ct. 1355, 1366 n. 31, 59 L.Ed.2d 587 (1979). See generally Nolting v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 799 F.2d 1192, 1199 (8th Cir.1986).

                business necessity.  Even if the employer shows that the discriminatory employment practice is justified by business necessity, the plaintiff may prevail by showing that other practices would accomplish the employer's objectives without the attendant discriminatory effects. 11   The district court found that "because of the significantly higher fertility rate among black females, the rule banning single pregnancies would impact black women more harshly."    Chambers, 629 F.Supp. at 949. 12   Thus, Chambers established the disparate impact of the role model rule. 13   The Club then sought to justify the rule as a business necessity
                

The district court found that the role model rule is justified by business necessity because there is a manifest relationship between the Club's fundamental purpose and the rule. Specifically, the court found:

The Girls Club has established by the evidence that its only purpose is to serve young girls between the ages of eight and eighteen and to provide these women with exposure to the greatest number of available positive options in life. The Girls Club has established that teenage pregnancy is contrary to this purpose and philosophy. The Girls Club established that it honestly believed...