PUBLISHED Filed: August 9, 2005
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
VIRGINIA ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, and SHERMAN T. LOTT; VERNELLE PAYTON; LARRY COLEMAN; AVA HAWKINS; CURTIS YOUNG; CLINTON EDWARDS, JR.; FRANCIS H. NEWMAN, JR.; SAMUEL QUILLER; PAMELA WADE; BENNIE BREELAND; GLENN STEPHENSON; KENNETH L. BRADY, SR.; CLYDE REED; ROBIN HOLMAN; JOHN L. NAYLOR; GWENDOLYN H. WATTS; ALTON BARNES; HAYWARD ERVIN; ALANA J. LEWIS; DEBRA A. WILLIAMS; JIMMIE LEE TURNER; No. 03-1150(L) CA-98-2075-1-23-BC WILLIAM BONAPARTE, JR.; JEFFREY A. MYERS; JOHNNY J. HOLMES; JAMES SHERMAN, III; DEBBIE S.G. POPE; CHARLES JONES; ANNIE B. LOTT- ABNEY; OLIVIA G. GAVIN; DIANE J. CRAWFORD; MAXINE S. WHITE; MARVIN MOORE; BERTHA LEGREE; IRMAGENE REED; WILLAR H. HIGHTOWER, JR.; JEFFREY A. BAILEY; CONSTANCE DORSEY; RYSON CARTER; RHONDA M. TILLER; PEGGY M. POLLOCK; CALVIN L. COOKS; GLORIA J. COLLINS; DANITA L. MYLER; PATRICIA LANGFORD; DELORES BEASLEY; MARY L. JOHNSON;
2 ANDERSON v. LOTT
MOSES MYERS; BENITA BASS; LINCHIE H. SIMMONS; WALTER DAISE; WANDA Y. SMITH; BERNARD NORA; CAROLYN W. THORPE; TOMMY A. CAMPBELL; DONALD F. BROOKS; LEWIS HOLSTON; DEITRA M. POUGH; ANGELA Y. HOLBROOK; PHYLLIS A. CALHOUN- HURLEY; NORRIS V. ROUSE; URSULA D. GAY-FURSE; DEBRA GANTT; ELVIRA JOHNSON; WILLIAM R. HALL; SHARON M. CAMPBELL; WINSTON BUTLER; QUITMAN WHITE; LEON BAKER; LINDA B. BAKER; GEORGE BUSH; GARY L. CARTER; CURTIS COKER, JR.; DIANNE T. DAVIS; SANDRA HARRISON; CHARLOTTE JOHNSON; TYRONE DAVIS; MARINDA B. JOHNSON; JOHNNY KING; DELORES MARTIN; CLINTON L. MCCALLA; DOUGLAS MCKENZIE; MARILYN MCKIE; MARLENE L. MOORE; JAMES MOTON; GOLDIE S. RANDLE; THOMAS WILLIAMS; JOSEPH RIDEAUX; WILLIAM L. RYANS; DIANNE S. SCOTT; VERONICA SHAW; MICHAEL STALEY; CALVIN R. SUBER; GEORGE A. TAYLOR; ELLEN M. VESSEL; KENNETH E. VINSON; HOPE YARBOROUGH, for themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ANDERSON v. LOTT 3
WESTINGHOUSE SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY; THE BABCOCK & WILCOX SAVANNAH RIVER COMPANY, INCORPORATED; BRITISH NUCLEAR FUELS LIMITED SAVANNAH RIVER CORPORATION; BECHTEL SAVANNAH RIVER, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND, INC., Amicus Supporting Appellant, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL; CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Amici Supporting Appellees.
ORDER
I.
Upon a request for a poll of the court on the petition for rehearing en banc, Judges Michael, Motz, King, Gregory and Duncan voted to grant the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Widener, Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Luttig, Williams, Traxler and Shedd voted to deny rehear- ing en banc.
It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc shall be, and it hereby is, denied.
II.
The panel considered the petition for rehearing. Judge Gregory voted to grant the petition for rehearing, and Judges Widener and Nie- meyer voted to deny the petition for rehearing.
4 ANDERSON v. LOTT It is accordingly ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the petition for rehearing shall be, and it hereby is, denied.
III.
Judge Gregory filed a dissent to this order, which is attached hereto.
Being disqualified, Judge Wilkins did not participate in the pro- ceedings with respect to this case.
/s/ H. E. Widener, Jr. For the Court
GREGORY, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
Despite being presented with statistical evidence showing that the subjective employment stages in question selected applicants for hire and promotion in a racial pattern different from that of the pool of applicants, this Court has determined that Virginia Anderson failed to state even a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination. In my view, we have set the bar too high with regard to Title VII dispa- rate impact cases. As a court, we are now on record as not only requiring almost certain causation to demonstrate a prima facie case but also requiring a McDonnell Douglas showing, in effect forcing a disparate impact claimant to show intent. In other words, what was a high jump has now become a pole vault that must be accomplished without a pole.
Regardless of precedential value, it is difficult to see how a poten- tial claimant perusing our jurisprudence in this area would not read this opinion as evincing some disfavor for Title VII disparate impact cases. At every turn the majority opinion took pains to impose upon the disparate impact claimant a standard higher than that required by Title VII jurisprudence. Ultimately, this approach resulted in dismiss- ing a potentially legitimate claim before a trial could be had to discern whether the defendants violated the mandates of Title VII. I fear that this outcome will have the effect of discouraging future Title VII claimants with legitimate claims from proceeding before this Court.
ANDERSON v. LOTT 5 I can only hope that a higher court will remedy the error committed here.
