On behalf of firefighter candidates living outside North Hudson, the NAACP sued alleging that the North Hudson residency requirement had a disparate impact on African-American candidates. The trial court found that it did, and North Hudson appealed. The appeals court affirmed.

1.What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

2.How should the "relevant labor market" be defined in a case like this? What was the evidence that the residency requirement had adverse (disparate) impact on African- Americans?

3. What reasons did the employer offer for having a residency requirement? Why were these insufficient to show business necessity?

4. What are the practical implications of this decision for public employer? Should they impose residency requirements at all? Would they be better off with stricter residency requirements (i.e., residency is requiredfor both applicants and current employees)? With more lenient policies (i.e., residency is preferred, but not required)?

5. Do you agree with the decision in this case? Why or why not?