426 U.S. 229 (1976)
The case involves a challenge to Test 21, a job qualification examination administered by the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department to applicants for police officer positions.1 Respondents presented evidence of the examination's discriminatory impact on the basis of race.2
The District Court concluded that Test 21 was validated by a positive relationship between Test 21 scores and performance in police training courses.3 A validity study established a statistical correlation between applicants' scores on Test 21 and recruits' average scores on final examinations given during the police training course.4
All recruits pass the training examinations.5 Assistance is given to those who experience difficulty.6 There is no demonstration in the record that the training course examinations measure comprehension of material relevant to job performance as a police officer.7
On October 12, 1972, the Civil Service Commission issued a supplement to the Federal Personnel Manual containing instructions for compliance with its general regulations concerning employment practices.8 The Civil Service Commission brief in this Court takes the position that petitioners did not satisfy the burden of proof imposed by the CSC guidelines.9 There is little evidence concerning the relationship between the Recruit School tests and the substance of the training program, and between the substance of the training program and the post-training job of a police officer.10
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations require that the validity of a job qualification test be proved by empirical data demonstrating that the test is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job.11
Whether the Court should address statutory questions under Title VII and 5 U.S.C. § 3304 when respondents' complaint asserted no such claims and rested on purely constitutional grounds?12
The Court should not pass on the statutory questions because they are not presented by this case.13
No. Initially, it seems that the Court should not pass on the statutory questions, because they are not presented by this case. Respondents' summary judgment motion rested on purely constitutional grounds, and the complaint asserted no claim under section 3304 or Title VII.14 There is a suggestion, however, that petitioners are entitled to prevail because they met the burden of proof imposed by 5 U.S.C. § 3304, but that provision, by the Court's own analysis, is no more in the case than Title VII.15
It is therefore inappropriate for the Court to address the statutory issues in this case.16
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented on multiple grounds.17 He argued that the Court should not have reached the statutory questions because the complaint asserted no claim under Title VII or section 3304 and rested on constitutional grounds.18 He would affirm the Court of Appeals because petitioners failed to prove that Test 21 satisfies Title VII standards.19
Brennan emphasized that the CSC brief itself concluded that the evidence did not establish the job-relatedness of the test.20 He noted that EEOC regulations, previously endorsed by the Court, require a result contrary to the majority.21 He found the conclusion inconsistent with Griggs and Albemarle, which require proof of a significant relationship to job performance, not merely training performance without further validation that the training is job-relevant.22
Whether petitioners carried their burden of proving Test 21 job-related by showing a statistical correlation between examination scores and recruits' average scores on final training examinations?23
To satisfy the burden under CSC instructions and EEOC regulations, proof that scores on an entrance examination predict scores on training school achievement tests does not by itself satisfy the burden of demonstrating the job-relatedness of the entrance examination.24 There must also be evidence showing that the achievement test scores are an appropriate measure of the trainee's mastery of the material taught in the training program and that the training program imparts to a new employee knowledge, skills, or abilities required for performance of the post-training job.25
No. Although a validity study established a statistical correlation between applicants' scores on Test 21 and recruits' average scores on final examinations given during the police training course, the record is devoid of proof that the recruits' average is correlated with job performance after completion of training.26 Furthermore, the Futransky study simply designated an average of 85 on the examination as a good performance and assumed that a recruit with such an average learned the material taught in the training course, without any further proof of the significance of a score of 85.27 The CSC maintains that a positive correlation between scores on entrance examinations and the criterion of success in training may establish the job relatedness of an entrance test only subject to the limitations described in its brief.28 The brief filed by the CSC in this case interprets the instructions in a manner directly contrary to the Court.29
Petitioners therefore did not carry their burden of proving that Test 21 is job-related under Title VII and CSC standards.30
Whether the job qualification examination Test 21 unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race under Title VII standards because petitioners failed to prove job relatedness?31
Under the standards established in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, once respondents have shown a discriminatory impact, petitioners must prove that the test is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job.32
Yes. The facts of the case establish that respondents presented evidence of the examination's discriminatory impact on the basis of race.33 The District Court concluded that Test 21 was validated by a positive relationship between Test 21 scores and performance in police training courses. A validity study established a statistical correlation between applicants' scores on Test 21 and recruits' average scores on final examinations given during the police training course.
All recruits pass the training examinations, with assistance given to those who experience difficulty. There is no demonstration in the record that the training course examinations measure comprehension of material relevant to job performance as a police officer. The Court of Appeals applied Title VII standards in reviewing the case. The Civil Service Commission brief in this Court takes the position that petitioners did not satisfy the burden of proof imposed by the CSC guidelines.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations require that the validity of a job qualification test be proved by empirical data demonstrating that the test is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job. Because the correlation is only with training scores that are not shown to relate to job performance, the test unlawfully discriminates.34
The examination therefore unlawfully discriminates on the basis of race because petitioners failed to carry their burden of proving job relatedness under Title VII and related standards.35