| Litigants: | Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services |
| Courtseal: | Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg |
| Arguedate: | Feb. 3, |
| Argueyear: | 1983 |
| Decidedate: | June 8, |
| Decideyear: | 1983 |
| Fullname: | Edward L. Kirkland, et al v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, et al |
| Citations: | 711 F.2d 1117 (2d Cir. 1983) 32 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 509 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,666 |
| Majority: | Lumbard |
| Joinmajority: | Feinberg, Kearse |
| Lawsapplied: | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 |
In Kirkland v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 711 F.2d 1117 (2d Cir. 1983),[1] the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of a settlement that determined promotional order based partly on exam results and partly on race-normed adjustments to the exam, after minority employees made a prima facie showing that the test had an adverse impact on minorities. The Court of Appeals noted that "voluntary compliance is a preferred means of achieving Title VII's goal of eliminating employment discrimination,",[2] and that requiring a full hearing on the test's job-validity before approving a settlement "would seriously undermine Title VII's preference for voluntary compliance and is not warranted,".[3] Thus, "a showing of a prima facie case of employment discrimination through a statistical demonstration of disproportionate racial impact constitutes a sufficiently serious claim of discrimination to serve as a predicate for a voluntary compromise containing race-conscious remedies."[4]
The case was cited in the District Court opinion for Ricci v. DeStefano, which was decided by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2009.[5]