Connection lost
Server error
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cross-Appellee v. Consolidated Service Systems, Cross-Appellant Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer’s reliance on word-of-mouth recruiting, which led to a mostly Korean workforce, was challenged by the EEOC. The court found no intentional discrimination, holding that choosing a hiring method for its cost-effectiveness, not discriminatory animus, is permissible under Title VII despite the resulting statistical imbalance.
Legal Significance: Establishes that reliance on passive, word-of-mouth recruiting, even if it creates a statistical workforce imbalance, does not by itself prove intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) if the practice is motivated by business efficiency rather than discriminatory animus.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cross-Appellee v. Consolidated Service Systems, Cross-Appellant Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Consolidated Service Systems, a small janitorial company owned by a Korean immigrant, Mr. Hwang, primarily utilized word-of-mouth recruiting to find new employees. This practice, which was virtually costless, resulted in a workforce that was overwhelmingly of Korean national origin. Between 1983 and 1987, 81% of hires were Korean, while Koreans comprised less than 1% of the relevant labor market. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Consolidated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging intentional discrimination (disparate treatment) based on national origin. The EEOC’s case relied heavily on the statistical disparity, arguing it created an inference of discriminatory intent. The EEOC also pointed to a single, unsuccessful advertisement in a Korean-language newspaper as evidence of intent. At trial, the EEOC presented four non-Korean applicants as witnesses, but the district court found their testimony to be not credible. The district court found for Consolidated, and the EEOC appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does an employer’s use of a passive word-of-mouth recruitment system, adopted for reasons of cost and efficiency that results in a significant statistical workforce imbalance, compel an inference of intentional discrimination under a Title VII disparate treatment theory?
No. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Consolidated was Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does an employer’s use of a passive word-of-mouth recruitment system, adopted for reasons of cost and efficiency that results in a significant statistical workforce imbalance, compel an inference of intentional discrimination under a Title VII disparate treatment theory?
Conclusion
This case establishes that in disparate treatment claims, proof of a legitimate, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volu
Legal Rule
To establish a claim for disparate treatment under Title VII, a plaintiff Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupi
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the distinction between disparate treatment, which requires Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deseru
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A statistical workforce imbalance caused by passive, word-of-mouth recruiting does not,
