Home > Title VII > EEOC v. Bloomberg and the Role of Statistical Evidence

EEOC v. Bloomberg and the Role of Statistical Evidence

There has already been a great deal of analysis concerning last month’s ruling in the Southern District of New York against the EEOC (see here and here). The court ruled that Bloomberg had not engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against pregnant employees and female employees who took maternity leave. The court, in an earlier ruling, had excluded the EEOC’s statistical evidence,  and this time around ruled that the remaining anecdotal evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie pattern or practice case. Although the court was careful to note that statistical evidence is not required in pattern or practice cases, the court nonetheless ruled that the absence of such evidence weighed heavily against the EEOC. In pattern or practice cases involving company-wide sexual harassment, courts have understandably relied on anecdotal evidence and other evidence regarding company-wide practice where “harassment” is difficult to quantify. But Bloomberg serves as a useful reminder that in “traditional” pattern or practice cases involving compensation, hiring and promotion, statistical evidence can make or break the plaintiffs’ case.

Advertisements
Categories: Title VII
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: