PLAINTIFFS' CORRECTED TRIAL BRIEF - Civil No. C92-3874-WHO

Sep 4, 2026

PLAINTIFFS' CORRECTED TRIAL BRIEF challenges California's public school employment certification test (CBEST) as an illegitimate, unnecessary barrier that discriminates against minorities under Title VI and Title VII. The brief asserts that since the test’s 1982 implementation, it has produced substantial adverse impact against Latino, African American, and Asian educators. Plaintiffs argue defendants cannot prove job-relatedness or business necessity and that less discriminatory, substantially equally valid alternatives exist for measuring the claimed basic skills.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages24

Reading Time1 h 0 min

AccessFree to download

INTRODUCTION

FACTS

I. ADVERSE IMPACT

II. THE CBEST’S LACK OF JOB-RELATEDNESS IS GUARANTEED BY ITS POLITICAL GENESIS

ARGUMENT

ADVERSE IMPACT EXISTS FOR LATINO, AFRICAN AMERICAN AND ASIAN CBEST TEST-TAKERS

DEFENDANTS CANNOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING JOB RELATEDNESS AND BUSINESS NECESSITY

A. General Principles

B. Defendants Have Failed To Prove Construct Validity

C. The State's Post-Litigation Attempt to Justify the CBEST 12 Years After Electing Not to Make the Test Job-related Should be Accorded Little Weight

THE CBEST PASSING SCORES HAVE BEEN SET ARBITRARILY HIGH FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND ARE NOT JOB-RELATED

THE STATE HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE REDUNDANCY OF THE CBEST AND ALTERNATIVES TO IT

CONCLUSION

41.1 5 PUBLIC ADVOCATES,INC.JOHN T.AFFELDTMARK SAVAGE1535 Mission Street San Francisco,California 94103(415)431-7430 THE IMPACT FUNDBRAD SELIGMANMARI MAYEDA1604 Solano AvenueBerkeley,California 94707(510)527-9385 BARRYL.GOLDSTEINOF COUNSEL Saperstein,Goldstein,Demchak &Baller1300 Clay Street,11th FloorOakland,California 94612(510)763-9800 Attorneys for PLAINTIFFS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF MEXICAN-AMERICANEDUCATORS("AMAE"),et al., Plaintiffs, V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA andCALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON TEACHER CREDENTIALING, Defendants. ) Civil No.C92-3874-WHOCivil Rights Class Action PLAINTIFFS'CORRECTEDTRIAL BRIEF Trial:Sept.18,1995 工 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 FACTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 I. ADVERSE IMPACT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3 II. THE CBEST’S LACK OF JOB-RELATEDNESS IS GUARANTEED BY ITS POLITICAL GENESIS ………………………………………………………5 ARGUMENT………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………9 ADVERSE IMPACT EXISTS FOR LATINO, I. AFRICAN AMERICAN AND ASIAN CBEST TEST-TAKERS ………………………………9 DEFENDANTS CANNOT MEET THEIR BURDEN II. OF PROVING JOB RELATEDNESS AND BUSINESS NECESSITY …………………10 A. General Principles ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 B. Defendants Have Failed To Prove Construct Validity …………………………………………11 C. The State's Post-Litigation Attempt to Justify the CBEST 12 Years After Electing Not to Make the Test Job-related Should be Accorded Little Weight ……………………………………………………………………………13 THE CBEST PASSING SCORES HAVE BEEN III. SET ARBITRARILY HIGH FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND ARE NOT JOB-RELATED ……………………………………………………………15 IV. THE STATE HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE REDUNDANCY OF THE CBEST AND ALTERNATIVES TO IT………………………………………………………………………………………16 V. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Case Law Albermarle Paper Co.v. Moody,422 U.S.405,433 n. 32 ………………………………………………15,16 AMAE v. State of California,836 F.Supp. 1534,1551 (N.D. Cal.1993)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,10 Berkman v. New York,536 F.Supp.177,206(E.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd,705 F.2d 584(2d Cir. 1983)………………………………………………………………………………………11 Bouman v. Block,940 F.2d 1211,1228(9th Cir) cert. denied, 502 U.S.1005(1991)....:……………………………………………………………………………9,10 Clady v. County of Los Angeles,770 F.2d 1421, 1428(9th Cir.1985)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 Contreras v. City of Los Angeles, 656 F.2d 1267, 1280-81(9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 451 U.S.1021(1982) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11 Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321,330(1977)…………………………………………………………………………10 。4…………………5D_MTAAn..Cc e of Ga………………………………………………………………2 Gillespie v. Wisconsin,771 F.2d 1035(7th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S.1083(1985).........:………………………………………………………………12 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S.424,432, 91 S.Ct. 849,854,28 L.Ed.2d 158(1971)………………………………………………………………………2,13 Groves5301a.26aMSate Ada. 199d1c.,76F.Sup. 1518……………………………10.16 Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n,463 U.S.582(1983)…………………………………………………10 Guardians Ass'n of New York City v.Civil Sery., 630 F.2d 79,93(2nd Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S.940(1981)……………………………………………………………………………………………………12 James v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co., 559 F.2d 310,354-355(5th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S.1034(1978)…………………………………………………………………………………………………15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 工 3 Kirkla374 F Supp. o361,1367 1359ciDnaI Serzics, aff'd in part & rev'd in part on other grounds, 520 F.2d 420(2d Cir.1975)……………………………………………………

FAQs

What does the brief challenge regarding the CBEST?

The brief challenges the CBEST as an unnecessary and illegitimate certification test that discriminates against minorities under Title VI and Title VII.

What impact does the brief claim the CBEST has since 1982?

It asserts that since the CBEST’s implementation, it has had a substantial adverse impact on Latino, African American, and Asian educators.

What do plaintiffs argue about alternatives to the CBEST?

Plaintiffs argue defendants have abundant less discriminatory options that are substantially equally valid for measuring the basic skills the CBEST is claimed to assess.

Sep 4, 2026

Uploaded by Caleb Sterling