The Iowa District Court ruled in favor of the State of Iowa in Pippen v. Iowa

(Haas, 2014). The decision brings an end to the first part of a class-action lawsuit claiming that the State of Iowa did not do enough to avoid implicit bias in making decisions—such as hiring and promotion—involving African-

Americans. The plaintiffs’ argued that implicit bias was present in decision-making and that the State of Iowa failed to comply with its rules and regulations designed to prevent adverse impact against African-Americans

(Paulin, 2012; Smith, 2012).

The lawsuit represented about 6,000 employees, asked for over $70 million in damages, and alleged that 37 departments in the State of Iowa used hiring and promotion practices that created adverse impact toward African-

Americans (Smith, 2012). A novel aspect of the lawsuit was that it used implicit bias as evidence for why White managers might be enacting bias in selection, compensation, and promotion decisions involving Black employees

(Smith, 2012). As part of the case, psychologist Anthony Greenwald, one of the researchers who originated the Implicit Association Test described in this chapter, testified that people who hold pro-White/anti-Black implicit biases can discriminate against Black employees without realizing it (Paulin, 2012) and that, on average, 70% of people show an implicit preference for Whites over Blacks (Smith, 2012).

According to the Court, the plaintiffs could not support the most important element of the case. The Court explained that “plaintiffs could not challenge the State’s decision-making process as a whole due to the myriad decision-makers and employment practices at issue” (Haas, 2014). Essentially, because there are so many decision-makers in the State of Iowa (37 departments, 700 job classifications, and about 2,000 supervisors with hiring and promotion authority), the Court did not believe it was appropriate to challenge the decision-making process of the state as a whole (Atherton, 2014; Haas, 2014).

In addition, the Court also stated that the plaintiffs were not able to show causation for their disparate impact claim (Atherton, 2014). According to the Court, data analysis by experts showed “better success rates for African-

Americans than Whites among the different [state] agencies as between the different stages of the hiring process” (Haas, 2014). The Court reasoned that there was no evidence of adverse impact because the statistical evidence showed a Black advantage across various state agencies. The Court further stated that Iowa’s public sector employs more African-Americans overall than the private sector (Haas, 2014).

In sum, this is the first case to rely on implicit bias as evidence of discrimination.

The plaintiffs lost this case, but according to some (Haas, 2014;

Smith, 2012), this is only the beginning and there will be more cases to make claims of implicit bias in the future. “Novel expert testimony is often rejected when it is first tried, but if plaintiff ’s lawyers keep trying, they ultimately may find a court that will admit such evidence. This type of testimony could be particularly damaging in a jury trial” (Smith, 2012).

Discussion Questions:

1. There is a discrepancy in this case. The Court points to evidence that there is no discrimination against African-Americans because they have a higher success rate than Whites in the hiring process. Yet African-Americans feel that implicit bias has impacted them in hiring and promotion. Is it possible that both of these two sides being presented are accurate?

2. What kinds of human resources processes could cause a situation where the hiring process is inclusive of African-Americans yet these same employees feel they do not advance in the organization? What might this say about process and accountability at the State of Iowa?

3. How could implicit biases be affecting all parties related to this case?