Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Lewis: Later Hiring Rounds Did Not Make the First Round Timely

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 23, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Lewis v. Chicago, 560 U.S. 205 (2010).

Winning the later-use question did not make every hiring round timely. In Lewis v. Chicago, 560 U.S. 205 (2010), the Supreme Court allowed a disparate-impact claim based on later applications of a test cutoff, but separately addressed relief already awarded for an earlier round outside the charging period. It also left a preserved proof objection for the appellate court. Reading those remand instructions prevents a timeliness victory from becoming an unsupported promise about the entire award. Lewis, at 216–217.

The district court had already tried the case

The City stipulated that the 89-point cutoff severely affected African-American applicants, but argued business necessity. After an eight-day bench trial, the district court rejected that defense, ordered 132 hires and awarded backpay. The Seventh Circuit then reversed on timeliness. The Supreme Court was therefore not sending an untried case back for its first merits assessment; it was reviewing the legal basis for rejecting claims after a trial. Lewis, at 209–210.

The surviving theory was a particular later use, not one endless violation

The applicants abandoned the district court’s theory treating adoption and use as a single ongoing wrong. Their Supreme Court position focused on each actual use of the cutoff to choose a new class. The statute’s use language made that a cognizable disparate-impact claim. The decision did not announce that every continuing consequence of an old employment decision restarts a charge period, especially under an intentional-discrimination theory. Lewis, at 211–216.

The City’s stipulation did not erase its remand argument

The City argued that its stipulation and trial presentation had addressed the earlier continuing-violation theory, not proof that each use caused disparate impact. The Supreme Court did not decide whether that objection succeeded or had been preserved. It said the Court of Appeals could consider it if preserved. A stipulation should therefore be read for what it actually admits, rather than treated as an answer to every later reformulation of the practice. Lewis, at 216.

Relief for the first round required separate review

Everyone agreed that the first May 1996 selection round fell outside the charging period even for the earliest charge. The applicants did not oppose remand on relief based on that round. The Supreme Court left the Seventh Circuit to determine, to the extent the issue was preserved, whether to modify the judgment. That is narrower than either automatically affirming the whole award or setting it aside in full. Lewis, at 217.

Match the proof and requested relief to each selection round

• Separate the announcement, list adoption and each actual selection round, with the evidence linking the claimant to the practice challenged.
• Read every stipulation against the theory on which the case was tried. Identify what remains disputed rather than assuming all causation was admitted.
• Allocate requested hiring and backpay relief to the rounds supporting it; do not silently include a round agreed to be outside the charge period.
• Preserve objections to proof and remedy at the proper stage. Lewis left preservation questions to the lower appellate court.