Langston Bradley, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Intervenor Below) v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Inc. D/B/A Domino's Pizza, and Domino's Pizza, Inc., Langston Bradley, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Intervenor Below) v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Inc. D/B/A Domino's Pizza, and Domino's Pizza, Inc.
Docket: 89-2271
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; July 24, 1991; Federal Appellate Court
Langston Bradley filed a disparate impact discrimination lawsuit against Domino's Pizza, Inc. and its franchisee, Pizzaco of Nebraska, alleging that his termination for not complying with a no-beard policy violated Title VII, as the policy disproportionately affected black males. The EEOC intervened, seeking relief for other similarly affected individuals. The district court dismissed the case, ruling that Bradley and the EEOC did not establish a prima facie case of disparate impact and that Bradley could comply with the policy.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit found errors in the district court's ruling, particularly regarding the evidence presented by Bradley and the EEOC. They needed to demonstrate that the no-beard policy caused a significant adverse impact on black males compared to white males. The court noted that pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), a condition affecting approximately half of black males, contributed to the disparity, as many black males cannot shave without complications. Medical evidence indicated that PFB predominantly affects black males and that a significant percentage of them could not shave due to the condition. The appellate court concluded that Bradley and the EEOC had indeed presented a prima facie case of disparate impact and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The district court rejected Bradley's and the EEOC's statistical evidence due to perceived inadequate sample sizes, despite no federal or statistical minimum being mandated. The court overlooked the dermatologist's unchallenged testimony linking his military study group to the broader black male population, supported by Domino's medical witness. Consequently, the statistical studies presented were deemed representative, establishing a prima facie case of disparate impact related to Domino's no-beard policy, which disproportionately affected black males, excluding nearly 25% from employment. The court found a valid inference that some black males could qualify for positions if not for the policy. The district court's dismissal of this evidence was deemed erroneous.
Regarding Bradley's ability to shave, despite contradictory testimonies about the severity of his PFB, the record indicated his mild condition allowed him to appear clean-shaven at his subsequent job. Thus, the court upheld the district court's finding on this issue. Lastly, Bradley's claim of disability under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act was not supported by the district court's findings, which were respected given the absence of state court precedent on the matter. Ultimately, the decision affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the district court to address the business justification stage of the disparate impact claim.
