The following excerpt is from Kim v. Commandant, Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center, 772 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1985):
The additional evidence that plaintiff sought to introduce (see appellant's brief at 32-33) concerns only the issue of whether the proficiency test requirement bears a "manifest relationship to the employment in question." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 432, 91 S.Ct. 849, 854, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). None of the proffered material directly supports the claim that the tests have a discriminatory impact.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.