Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    Fabian Thomas brought a lawsuit alleging that the FBI's requirement that special agents have a four-year college degree had an illegal discriminatory impact based on race. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The appeals court affirms, finding that Thomas failed to present a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination because the defendants' evidence showed that of the 72,000 applicants for special agent positions, only nine were denied consideration due to having a non-resident degree, of which five were white and four were black, showing no significant discriminatory impact.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-11-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Citations: 8 F.3d 820 Docket: 93-1593

    Original Title

    Fabian A. Thomas v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States of America William Sessions, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 8 F.3d 820, 4th Cir. (1993)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Fabian Thomas brought a lawsuit alleging that the FBI's requirement that special agents have a four-year college degree had an illegal discriminatory impact based on race. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The appeals court affirms, finding that Thomas failed to present a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination because the defendants' evidence showed that of the 72,000 applicants for special agent positions, only nine were denied consideration due to having a non-resident degree, of which five were white and four were black, showing no significant discriminatory impact.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    7 views2 pages

    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Fabian Thomas brought a lawsuit alleging that the FBI's requirement that special agents have a four-year college degree had an illegal discriminatory impact based on race. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The appeals court affirms, finding that Thomas failed to present a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination because the defendants' evidence showed that of the 72,000 applicants for special agent positions, only nine were denied consideration due to having a non-resident degree, of which five were white and four were black, showing no significant discriminatory impact.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    8 F.

    3d 820

    NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of


    unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
    res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
    service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
    Circuit.
    Fabian A. THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    Janet RENO, Attorney General of the United States of
    America; William Sessions, Director, Federal
    Bureau of Investigation, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 93-1593.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: October 25, 1993.
    Decided: November 4, 1993.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Fabian A. Thomas, Appellant Pro Se.
    Dennis Edward Szybala, Assistant United States Attorney, for Appellees.
    E.D.Va.
    AFFIRMED.
    Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:

    OPINION

    Fabian A. Thomas brought suit for illegal discrimination resulting from the
    alleged racially-disparate impact of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
    requirement that Special Agents possess a resident four-year college degree. He
    appeals from the district court order granting summary judgment in favor of the
    Defendants. Because we find that Thomas failed to present a prima facie case
    of disparate impact discrimination, we affirm.

    Summary judgment is properly granted where the record, taken as a whole,


    reveals that a rational trier of fact could not find for the nonmoving party.
    Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). All factual
    allegations made by the non-movant, and all reasonable inferences therefrom,
    are read in favor of the non-moving party. Cole v. Cole, 633 F.2d 1083, 1092
    (4th Cir. 1980). This Court reviews summary judgments de novo. Higgins v.
    E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988).

    To state a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that a


    facially-neutral employment requirement had a significantly discriminatory
    impact. Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 446 (1982) (citing Griggs v. Duke
    Power, 401 U.S. 424, 432 (1971)). Defendants' evidence is uncontradicted that,
    of the 72,000 applicants for positions as Special Agents, only nine were denied
    consideration because of their non-resident degrees; of those nine applicants,
    five were white and four were black. Thus, the district court properly granted
    summary judgment in favor of the Defendants.

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like