This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: the other safety mechanisms Dial started to put in place in
Dial contends finally that the district court improperly gave it the burden to
establish that there was no less discriminatory alternative to the WTS. Dial claims the
burden should have been allocated to EEOC as part of the burden shifting framework
in disparate impact cases, Firefighters, 220 F.3d at 904. Since Dial failed to
demonstrate that the WTS was a business necessity, however, EEOC never was
required to show the absence of a nondiscriminatory alternative. Part of the
employer's burden to establish business necessity is to demonstrate the need for the
challenged procedure, Kirby v. Colony Furniture Co., 613 F.2d 696, 705 n.6 (8th Cir.
1980), and the court found that Dial had not shown that its other safety measures
"could not produce the same results." We conclude that the district court findings in
its disparate impact analysis were not clearly erroneous, and we see no legal error in
its conclusions on liability.
Dial claims the district court committed error by awarding back pay and
benefits to all but one of the claimants even though twenty four women had been
unable to complete the WTS. But once an employer is found liable for a Title VII
violation, the district court is obligated to grant "the most complete relief possible."
King v. Staley, 849 F.2d 1143, 1144 (8th Cir. 1988). There is a strong presumption
that an employee who has suffered discrimination should receive back pay. E.E.O.C.
-10v. Rath Packing Co., 787 F.2d 318, 329 (8th Cir. 1986). This presumption can be
overcome only if back pay would "frustrate the central statutory purposes of
eradicating discrimination throughout the economy and making persons whole for
injuries suffered through past discrimination." Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422
U.S. 405, 421 (1975). The trial court "has broad equitable discretion to fashion back
pay awards in order to make the Title VII victim whole." E.E.O.C. v. Delight
Wholesale Co., 973 F.2d 664, 669-70 (8th Cir. 1992). The district court's finding of
discrimination was based on Dial's use of the WTS and the evi...
View Full Document
- Spring '08