CONNECTICUT v. TEAL Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer used a promotion test that disproportionately failed Black candidates. The Supreme Court held that even though the employer’s final promotion numbers were racially balanced, the discriminatory test itself violated Title VII because it denied individuals an employment opportunity.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that a favorable “bottom-line” outcome in a hiring or promotion process is not a defense to a claim that a specific component of that process, such as a test, has an unlawful disparate impact under Title VII.
CONNECTICUT v. TEAL Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Four Black employees of a Connecticut state agency, who were provisional supervisors, sought permanent promotion. The first step in the multi-stage promotion process was a written examination. The pass rate for Black candidates on this exam was approximately 68% of the pass rate for white candidates, establishing a prima facie case of disparate impact. The four plaintiffs failed the exam and were thus barred from further consideration for the permanent positions. After the exam, the employer utilized other criteria and an affirmative action program to make its final promotion decisions. The overall result was that 22.9% of the original Black candidates were promoted, compared to only 13.5% of the white candidates. The employer argued that this favorable “bottom-line” racial balance was a complete defense to the plaintiffs’ claim that the initial test was discriminatory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs contended that the test itself was an unlawful barrier to their employment opportunity, regardless of the final promotion statistics.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a non-discriminatory “bottom-line” result in a multi-stage promotion process immunize an employer from liability under Title VII for a specific component of that process, such as a pass/fail examination, that has a disparate impact on a protected group?
No. The Court held that an employer’s favorable “bottom-line” statistics do not Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dol
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a non-discriminatory “bottom-line” result in a multi-stage promotion process immunize an employer from liability under Title VII for a specific component of that process, such as a pass/fail examination, that has a disparate impact on a protected group?
Conclusion
Connecticut v. Teal establishes that each component of a multi-part selection process Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commo
Legal Rule
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an individual Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui o
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis centered on the plain language and purpose of § Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The “bottom-line” defense is not valid in Title VII disparate impact