of equivalency. However, because of the Seventh Circuit order,
the Court will assume arguendo that plaintiff's statistics prove
a prima facie case of disparate impact.
Once it is shown that the high school education requirement is
discriminatory in effect, the burden then shifts to defendant to
show that the requirement is job related; that it has a manifest
relationship to the employment in question. Griggs, 401 U.S. at
432, 91 S.Ct. at 854. To establish the fact that a high school
education is job related, defendant points to the wide ranging
duties of a correctional officer which include knowledge and
understanding of the rules, regulations and policies, writing
reports, dealing with and communicating with inmates in routine
and emergency situations, as well as assisting in rehabilitation.
Appointees must go through ten weeks of special training which
includes college courses in report writing, law enforcement,
speech, and correctional law. Indeed, cadets are entitled to
receive 12 hours of college credit for successful completion of
Plaintiff has not really presented any evidence to support the
position that the requirement is not justified by a business
necessity. Instead, plaintiffs have steadfastly maintained that
because the high school education requirement has not been
validated by empirically based studies adhering to the minimum
validation requirements set out in the E.E.O.C. Guidelines, it
cannot meet the business necessity test. 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5.
Plaintiff relies upon the Supreme Court's decision in Albemarle
Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280
(1975) for his contention that the high school diploma
requirement must be validated according to the E.E.O.C.
Guidelines in order to be found to be job related. In Albemarle
Paper the Court held that pre-employment tests which are found to
be discriminatory are impermissible unless validated in
accordance with the E.E.O.C. Guidelines. The purpose of the
validation is to show that the test is predictive of or
significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior
which comprise or are relevant to the job or jobs for which the
candidates are being evaluated. Id. at 431, 95 S.Ct. at 2378.
The Court in Albemarle Paper dealt with pencil and paper tests.
This Court is aware of no case which has held that the E.E.O.C.
Guidelines apply to education requirements. Indeed, in Griggs,
the Supreme Court indicated that the Guidelines do not apply to
high school diploma requirements, at least with regards to §
703(h) of Title VII. 401 U.S. at 433 n. 8, 91 S.Ct. at 854 n. 8.
In fact, at least two courts have found a high school diploma
requirement to be valid for police officers, without adherence to
the Guidelines, even after Albemarle Paper. United States v. City
of Buffalo, 457 F. Supp. 612 (W.D.N.Y. 1978), mod. 633 F.2d 643
(2nd Cir. 1980); League of the United Latin American Citizens v.
City of Santa Ana, 410 F. Supp. 873 (S.D.Cal. 1976). These Courts
concluded that the high school requirement has been validated by
meaningful studies of their relationship to job performance
ability. The studies referred to are the 1967 report of the
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice, "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society," at 106-110,
its underlying "Task Force Report: The Police", at 126-128, and
the subsequent 1968 "Report of the National Advisory Commission
on Civil Disorders," at 106. These reports reached the conclusion
that a high school education is a bare minimum requirement for
successful performance of a policeman's responsibilities.
This Court is aware of the Supreme Court's statement in Griggs,
that the Guidelines are the administrative interpretation of the
Act by the enforcing agency and consequently they are entitled to
great deference. Griggs, 401 U.S. at 433-34, 91 S.Ct. at 854-855.
In Griggs, the Court struck down a high school education
requirement for entry into certain departments of a private
company. But in doing so, the Court did not base its decision on
the fact that no validation study had been made, nor did it ever
indicate that the Guidelines were applicable to educational
requirements. This Court agrees with the Court in Santa Ana when
This Court, therefore, is reluctant to accept the
idea that education requirements must be empirically
validated. To accept that concept would be to adopt
the proposition that the empiricist's methods of
arriving at truth are the only acceptable ones. It
would involve the categorical rejection of reports of
Presidential Commissions on the basis that they were
"unscientific." Before this court will accept the
notion that empirical methods of finding truth are
the sine qua non of Title VII determinations (let
alone Constitutional determinations), a clearer
signal from the appellate courts will be required. It
is one thing to say that paper and pencil tests must
be validated by prevailing concepts of educational
measurement (Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, supra, 422
U.S. at 431, 95 S.Ct. at 2378, 45 L.Ed.2d at 304); it
is quite another to say that the common sense
judgment and reasoning of expert observers cannot be
considered as relevant to the assessment of the value
of institutional education to the increasingly
complicated tasks of the police officer in an urban
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Santa Ana, 410
F. Supp. at 901. (emphasis added).
Defendant relies heavily upon the fact that the courts have
upheld high school education requirements for police as job
related. The job of correctional officer is, in many ways,
comparable to that of a police officer. The type and level of
training required of correctional officers, the duty to fill out
detailed reports, the need to interact and communicate with
inmates of diverse backgrounds are all functions that are similar
to those of a police officer. And while it is true that
correctional officers are not police officers, they are peace
officers and law enforcement personnel and therefore authorized
to carry firearms while on duty. Ill.Rev.Stat. 1975, ch. 38 ¶¶
2-13, 7-9, 31-6, 24-2(a)(1). Additionally, both jobs contain a
high potential for abuse due to the inherent power in the
position. Because of the great similarity between the two
positions, the Court concludes that defendant has carried its
burden of demonstrating that the high school education
requirement is job related.
As already stated, plaintiff has presented little or no
evidence to indicate that a high school education is not job
related. Nor has plaintiff shown the existence of other selection
devices, without a discriminatory effect, that serve the
legitimate interest in efficient and trustworthy workmanship.
Accordingly, this Court concludes that the defendant is entitled
to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that the high school
education requirement discriminates against him on the basis of
his national origin.
MENTAL ABILITY TEST
Because of the detailed procedural history of this case, the
Court will analyze plaintiff's claim that the mental ability test
discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin,
despite the fact that the Court has already decided that
defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's high
school education claim.
As previously noted, due to an earlier ruling, plaintiff was
allowed to proceed to the second step in the application process
while defendant appealed Judge Crowley's initial decision. The
second step consists of a standard mental ability examination.
Plaintiff failed the examination and immediately proceeded to
amend his complaint to include a count charging that the test has
a discriminating impact upon SSA's.
The evidence presented does not support plaintiff's claim.
Plaintiff took the examination in June 1980. The 1980 statistics
indicate that the pass rate for SSA's was higher than the overall
PASSED FAILED RATE
Surnamed 29 47 38.2%
Overall 582 1220 32.3%
The statistics do not indicate that SSA's are being eliminated by
the test at a disproportionate rate. Therefore plaintiff has not
established a prima facie case under the Griggs standard.
Accordingly, defendant is entitled to summary judgment on
plaintiff's claim that the mental ability test has a disparate
impact upon SSA's.