[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-202865-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-202865-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","plaintiffs-corrected-trial-brief-civil-no-c92-3874-who","PLAINTIFFS' CORRECTED TRIAL BRIEF - Civil No. C92-3874-WHO","","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.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/plaintiffs-corrected-trial-brief-civil-no-c92-3874-who/202865/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/plaintiffs-corrected-trial-brief-civil-no-c92-3874-who/202865.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Caleb Sterling","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-21","2026-09-04",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",16,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does the brief challenge regarding the CBEST?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The brief challenges the CBEST as an unnecessary and illegitimate certification test that discriminates against minorities under Title VI and Title VII.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What impact does the brief claim the CBEST has since 1982?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It asserts that since the CBEST’s implementation, it has had a substantial adverse impact on Latino, African American, and Asian educators.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What do plaintiffs argue about alternatives to the CBEST?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Plaintiffs argue defendants have abundant less discriminatory options that are substantially equally valid for measuring the basic skills the CBEST is claimed to assess.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},202865,1788551716,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,127],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":124,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":124,"slug":126},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":130},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":132},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":133,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":80,"read_time":99,"preview_page_count":4},962084925290,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","41.1  \n5  \nPUBLIC ADVOCATES,INC.JOHN T.AFFELDTMARK SAVAGE1535 Mission Street  \nSan Francisco,California 94103(415)431-7430  \nTHE IMPACT FUNDBRAD SELIGMANMARI MAYEDA1604 Solano AvenueBerkeley,California 94707(510)527-9385  \nBARRYL.GOLDSTEINOF COUNSEL  \nSaperstein,Goldstein,Demchak &Baller1300 Clay Street,11th FloorOakland,California 94612(510)763-9800  \nAttorneys for PLAINTIFFS  \nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA  \nASSOCIATION OF MEXICAN-AMERICANEDUCATORS(\"AMAE\"),et al.,  \nPlaintiffs,  \nV.  \nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA andCALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON  \nTEACHER CREDENTIALING,  \nDefendants.  \n)  \nCivil No.C92-3874-WHOCivil Rights Class Action  \nPLAINTIFFS'CORRECTEDTRIAL BRIEF  \nTrial:Sept.18,1995  \n工  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nPage  \nINTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1  \nFACTS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3  \nI. ADVERSE IMPACT …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3  \nII. THE CBEST’S LACK OF JOB-RELATEDNESS  \nIS GUARANTEED BY ITS POLITICAL GENESIS ………………………………………………………5  \nARGUMENT…………………………………………  \n………………………………………………………………………………………9  \nADVERSE IMPACT EXISTS FOR LATINO,  \nI.  \nAFRICAN AMERICAN AND ASIAN CBEST TEST-TAKERS ………………………………9  \nDEFENDANTS CANNOT MEET THEIR BURDEN  \nII.  \nOF PROVING JOB RELATEDNESS AND BUSINESS NECESSITY …………………10  \nA. General Principles ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10  \nB. Defendants Have Failed To Prove Construct Validity …………………………………………11  \nC.  \nThe State's Post-Litigation Attempt to Justify  \nthe CBEST 12 Years After Electing  \nNot to Make the Test Job-related  \nShould be Accorded Little Weight ……………………………………………………………………………13  \n THE CBEST PASSING SCORES HAVE BEEN  \nIII.  \nSET ARBITRARILY HIGH FOR POLITICAL  \nREASONS AND ARE NOT JOB-RELATED ……………………………………………………………15  \nIV. THE STATE HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER  \nTHE REDUNDANCY OF THE CBEST  \nAND ALTERNATIVES TO IT………………………………………………………………………………………16  \nV. CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………18  \n2  \n3  \n4  \n5  \n6  \n7  \n8  \n9  \n10  \n11  \n12  \n13  \n14  \n15  \n16  \n17  \n18  \n19  \n20  \n21  \n22  \n23  \n24  \n25  \n26  \nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES  \nPage(s)  \nCase Law  \nAlbermarle Paper Co.v. Moody,422 U.S.405,433 n. 32 ………………………………………………15,16  \nAMAE v. State of California,836 F.Supp. 1534,1551  \n(N.D. Cal.1993)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1,10  \nBerkman v. New York,536 F.Supp.177,206(E.D.N.Y. 1982),  \naff'd,705 F.2d 584(2d Cir. 1983)………………………………………………………………………………………11  \nBouman v. Block,940 F.2d 1211,1228(9th Cir)  \ncert. denied, 502 U.S.1005(1991)....:……………………………………………………………………………9,10  \nClady v. County of Los Angeles,770 F.2d 1421,  \n1428(9th Cir.1985)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………16  \nContreras v. City of Los Angeles, 656 F.2d 1267,  \n1280-81(9th Cir.1981), cert. denied,  \n451 U.S.1021(1982) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………11  \nDothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321,330(1977)…………………………………………………………………………10  \n。4…………………5D_MTAAn..Cc  \ne of Ga………………………………………………………………2  \nGillespie v. Wisconsin,771 F.2d 1035(7th Cir.1985),  \ncert. denied, 474 U.S.1083(1985).........:………………………………………………………………12  \nGriggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S.424,432,  \n91 S.Ct. 849,854,28 L.Ed.2d 158(1971)………………………………………………………………………2,13  \nGroves5301a.26aMSate Ada. 199d1c.,76F.Sup. 1518……………………………10.16  \nGuardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n,463 U.S.582(1983)…………………………………………………10  \nGuardians Ass'n of New York City v.Civil Sery.,  \n630 F.2d 79,93(2nd Cir. 1980),  \ncert. denied, 452 U.S.940(1981)……………………………………………………………………………………………………12  \nJames v. Stockham Valves & Fittings Co.,  \n559 F.2d 310,354-355(5th Cir.1977),  \ncert. denied, 434 U.S.1034(1978)…………………………………………………………………………………………………15  \n1  \n2  \n3  \n4  \n5  \n6  \n7  \n8  \n9  \n10  \n11  \n12  \n13  \n14  \n15  \n16  \n17  \n18  \n19  \n20  \n21  \n22  \n23  \n24  \n25  \n26  \n工  \n3  \nKirkla374 F Supp. o361,1367 1359ciDnaI Serzics,  \naff'd in part & rev'd in part on other grounds,  \n520 F.2d 420(2d Cir.1975)……………………………………………………","cbCaih246EYeuSjW","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaih246EYeuSjW","pdf",9902132,24,"English","# INTRODUCTION\n## FACTS\n### I. ADVERSE IMPACT\n### II. THE CBEST’S LACK OF JOB-RELATEDNESS IS GUARANTEED BY ITS POLITICAL GENESIS\n# ARGUMENT\n## ADVERSE IMPACT EXISTS FOR LATINO, AFRICAN AMERICAN AND ASIAN CBEST TEST-TAKERS\n## DEFENDANTS CANNOT MEET THEIR BURDEN OF PROVING JOB RELATEDNESS AND BUSINESS NECESSITY\n### A. General Principles\n### B. Defendants Have Failed To Prove Construct Validity\n### 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\n## THE CBEST PASSING SCORES HAVE BEEN SET ARBITRARILY HIGH FOR POLITICAL REASONS AND ARE NOT JOB-RELATED\n## THE STATE HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE REDUNDANCY OF THE CBEST AND ALTERNATIVES TO IT\n# CONCLUSION","[{\"question\":\"What does the brief challenge regarding the CBEST?\",\"answer\":\"The brief challenges the CBEST as an unnecessary and illegitimate certification test that discriminates against minorities under Title VI and Title VII.\"},{\"question\":\"What impact does the brief claim the CBEST has since 1982?\",\"answer\":\"It asserts that since the CBEST’s implementation, it has had a substantial adverse impact on Latino, African American, and Asian educators.\"},{\"question\":\"What do plaintiffs argue about alternatives to the CBEST?\",\"answer\":\"Plaintiffs argue defendants have abundant less discriminatory options that are substantially equally valid for measuring the basic skills the CBEST is claimed to assess.\"}]","PLAINTIFFS' CORRECTED TRIAL BRIEF - Civil No. C92-3874-WHO | PDF"]