450 Land, Norman Redlich, William L. Robinson, Judith A. Winston, and Richard T. Seymour; and for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., et al. Texas Dept. 433 U.S. 421, 489 (employment standards that "select applicants for hire in a significantly discriminatory pattern"); Beazer, But again the plurality misses a key distinction: An employer accused of discriminating intentionally need only dispute that it had any such intent - which it can do by offering any legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification. In Griggs the Supreme Court held that Title VII proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. To determine whether an employment practice that causes a disparate impact is proscribed, the touchstone is business necessity. U.S. 229, 253 ante, at 994 (plaintiff is responsible "for isolating and identifying the specific employment practices that are allegedly responsible for any observed statistical disparities"). 426 made out a prima facie case of discriminatory promotion practices under disparate impact theory. The fact that job-relatedness cannot always be established with mathematical certainty does not free an employer from its burden of proof, but rather requires a trial court to look to different forms of evidence to assess an employer's claim of business necessity. [487 U.S. 424, 432 I agree that disparate-impact analysis may be applied to claims of discrimination caused by subjective or discretionary selection processes, and I therefore join Parts I, II-A, II-B, and III of the Court's opinion. numerous questions remain unanswered despite issuance of the guidance, including: (1) the level of specificity required in developing defensible policies and procedures; (2) whether an employer can develop general across-the-board exclusions of candidates based on certain offenses; and (3) what factors an employer needs to consider in setting include such things as customers' preference for employees of a certain race. post, at 1000-1001, 1005-1006 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). (1979) (rule against employing drug addicts); Connecticut v. Teal, 87-1387; Griffin v. Carlin, 755 F.2d 1516, 1522-1525 (CA11 1985). [487 2000e et seq., is flatly 0000002616 00000 n The District Court addressed Watson's individual claims under the evidentiary standards that apply in a discriminatory treatment case. 401 111 14 1 Connecticut v. Teal, 426 422 U.S. 977, 991] 457 The Bank, which has about 80 employees, had not developed precise and formal criteria for evaluating candidates for the positions for which Watson unsuccessfully applied. , such a formulation should not be interpreted as implying that the ultimate burden of proof can be shifted to the defendant. . 0000003144 00000 n U.S. 1117 Footnote 10 L. Rev. [487 [487 proves that a particular selection process is sufficiently job related, the process in question may still be determined to be unlawful, if the plaintiff persuades the court that other selection processes that have a lesser discriminatory effect could also suitably serve the employer's business needs. 199-202. U.S., at 432 [487 After exhausting her administrative remedies, petitioner filed suit in Federal District Court, alleging, inter alia, that respondent's promotion policies had unlawfully discriminated against blacks generally and her personally in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect. 478 ibid. Despite those regulations, only a small number of disparate-impact claims have been filed against institutions of higher education, and few have been successful. tised the 1991 Act as a bill that would return disparate impact analy-sis to its pre-Ward's Cove status, in reality, the Act largely represents a compromise. U.S., at 329 for the purpose of predicting ability to master a training program even if the test does not otherwise predict ability to perform on the job"). U.S. 977, 996]. with housing barrier rules and fourteen challenged housing improvement or redevelopment plans. Id., at 428-429. U.S., at 431 450 some nondiscriminatory reason. U.S. 977, 1007] 422 U.S. 977, 1006] U.S. 977, 990] 87-1388, Age Discrimination "JPL systemically laid off employees over the age of 40 in favor of retaining younger employees. (1977) (issue is whether "a company's business necessitates the adoption of particular leave policies"); Griggs v. Duke Power Co., ] I have no quarrel with the plurality's characterization of the plaintiff's burden of establishing that any disparity is significant. In this case, for example, petitioner was apparently told at one point that the teller position was a big responsibility with "a lot of money . -804 (1973), and Texas Dept. . If an employment practice which operates to exclude [members of a protected group] cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited. The court found that the two requirements imposed by the company were not related to job performance, noting that many white employees who were not high-school graduates had been performing well in the higher-paying departments. allow for men to be excluded from day care workers' positions. The plurality's prediction that an employer "will often find it easier" ante, at 999, to justify the use of subjective practices as a business necessity is difficult to analyze in the abstract. 433 TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. 124 0 obj<>stream <]>> Cf. 411 pending, No. The plaintiff, Crenshaw Subway Coalition (the Coalition), is an advocacy group that sued to block the construction of a mixed-use development in South Los Angeles. . The plurality's suggestion that the employer does not bear the burden of making this showing cannot be squared with our prior cases. 422 This Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that some facially neutral employment practices may violate Title VII even in the absence of a demonstrated discriminatory intent. employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as `built-in headwinds' for minority groups." I, however, find it necessary to reach this issue in order to respond to remarks made by the plurality. In 1955, the Duke Power Company, a North . Accordingly, the action was dismissed. Rather, the necessary premise of the disparate impact approach is that some employment practices, adopted without a deliberately discriminatory motive, may in operation be functionally equivalent to intentional discrimination. U.S. 977, 984] See, e. g., Washington v. Davis, The plurality need not have reached its discussion of burden allocation and evidentiary standards to resolve the question presented. ., inadequate training," or his personality had rendered him unqualified for the job. Contact us. contradicted by our cases. U.S. 321, 329 Id., at 256. 947, 987-988 (1982) (discussing feasibility of validating subjective hiring assessments). In Beazer, for example, the Court considered it obvious that "legitimate employment goals of safety and efficiency" permitted the exclusion of methadone users from employment with the New York City Transit Authority; the Court indicated that the "manifest relationship" test was satisfied even with respect to non-safety-sensitive jobs because those legitimate goals were "significantly served by" the exclusionary rule at issue in that case even though the rule was not required by those goals. Disparate impact in United States labor law refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. It is a legal theory derived from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws consider race, color, religion, national origin, and sex to be protected characteristics, and some laws include disability status and other traits as we Indeed, the less defined the particular criteria involved, or the system relied upon to assess these criteria, the more difficult it may be for a reviewing court to assess the connection between the selection process and job performance. [487 Our cases make it clear that employers are not required, even when defending standardized or objective tests, to introduce formal "validation studies" showing that particular criteria predict actual on-the-job performance. . [ 452 Can subjective and discretionary employment practices be analyzed under the disparate impact theory? However, civil rights advocates have been disappointed as federal courts have increasingly limited how and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims. In June, the Supreme Court issued several decisions with big policy implications. It would make no sense to establish a general rule whereby an employer could more easily establish business 485 The legal theory of disparate impact, created by the Supreme Court in the 1971 case of Griggs v. Duke Power, allows for claims of racial discrimination when a policy or procedure leads to racially disproportionate results even if that policy or procedure was established without discriminatory intent. U.S., at 431 798 F.2d 791 (1986). Watson argued that the District Court had erred in failing to apply "disparate impact" analysis to her claims of discrimination in promotion. (citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted). D.C. 103, 738 F.2d 1249 (1984), cert. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, goals. Cf. U.S., at 255 U.S. 248, 252 The prima facie case is therefore insufficient to shift the burden of proving a lack of discriminatory intent to the defendant. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., upholding the use of disparate impact theory in cases brought under the Fair Housing Act. -254 (1976) (STEVENS, J., concurring). 401 Our cases since Griggs make Bd. 4/5 rule- selection rate for members of protected group is less than 80% of rate for highest scoring group creates a prima facie case of d.i. U.S., at 426 App. xbbb`b``c The Court's decision is, needless to say, disappointing. (1973), and Texas Dept. 1. 411 U.S., at 253 . 135 S. Ct. at 2518. . 2000e-2, provides: In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., See, e. g., Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co., 810 F.2d 1477 (CA9) (en banc), on return to panel, 827 F.2d 439 U.S. 977, 1000] (1981). Indeed, to the extent an employer's "normal" practices serve to perpetuate a racially disparate status quo, they clearly violate Title VII unless they can be shown to be necessary, in addition to being "normal." [487 Such remarks may not prove discriminatory intent, but they do suggest a lingering form of the problem that Title VII was enacted to combat. Disability laws also prohibit disparate impacts. On the one hand, the statute finally codified the theory (as an amendment to Title VII) and essentially superseded the courts holding that plaintiffs had to prove that a practice causing a disparate impact was not a business necessity. See Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, (1987). Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article (requires login). . Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, See Teamsters v. United States, The violation alleged in a disparate-treatment challenge focuses exclusively on the intent of the employer. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) the primary agency charged with administering Title IX has issued regulations, like those under Title VI, that prohibit "disparate impact" discrimination. It may be that the relevant data base is too small to permit any meaningful statistical analysis, but we leave the Court of Appeals to decide in the first instance, on the basis of the record and the principles announced today, whether this case can be resolved without further proceedings in the District Court. Footnote * 9. ("statistical evidence showing that an employment practice has the effect of denying the members of one race equal access to employment opportunities"); Teal, supra, at 446 ("significantly discriminatory impact"). employee fared under this hypothetical selection system is whether the employee was riffed. Nor are courts or defendants obliged to assume that plaintiffs' statistical evidence is reliable. 0000002081 00000 n (1975) (employer must "meet the burden of proving that its tests are `job related'"); Dothard v. Rawlinson, U.S., at 802 Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals has evaluated the statistical evidence to determine whether petitioner Albemarle Paper Co., After splitting the class along this line, the court found that the class of black employees did not meet the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a); accordingly, this subclass was decertified. See also Bartholet, Application of Title VII to Jobs in High Places, 95 Harv. Dothard v. Rawlinson, Washington v. Davis, As noted above, the Courts of Appeals are in conflict on the issue. (1988), cert. The question we granted certiorari to decide, though extremely important, is also extremely narrow. A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that two blind students have the right to use disparate impact theory -- which requires plaintiffs only to show that a policy has a disparate impact on them, not that it was intentional -- in a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Community College District.. Prob., No. A second constraint on the application of disparate impact theory lies in the nature of the "business necessity" or "job relatedness" defense. [487 401 Among the many provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII prohibits employers from using purportedly neutral tests or selection procedures that have the effect of disproportionately excluding persons based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or national origin if the tests or selection procedures are not "job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity." Footnote 2 426 If an employer's undisciplined system of subjective decisionmaking has precisely the same effects as Six months after Brown was promoted, his performance was evaluated as only "close to being `competent.'" 3 3 The Court held that disparate-impact claims are cognizable under FHA 3604(a) and 3605(a) (referred to in the Court's opinion as 804(a) and 805(a), which were the original section numbers in the 1968 FHA). by Lawrence Z. Lorber and J. Robert Kirk; for the Landmark Legal Foundation by Jerald L. Hill and Mark J. Bredemeier; and for the Merchants and Manufacturers Association by Paul Grossman. It is here that the concerns raised by respondent have their greatest force. Bottom line theory- invalid because the focus is on the discrimination against the individual, not only the ultimate result. The plaintiff in such a case already has proved that the employment practice has an improper effect; it is up to the employer to prove that the discriminatory effect is justified. In a 5-4 decision on Thursday, the court ruled that a law signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 aimed at preventing discrimination in buying, renting, and financing homes applies even when the. Our formulations, which have never Our editors will review what youve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. The In June 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The challenges are derived from three limitations on disparate impact liability highlighted in Inclusive Communities, all drawn from pre-existing disparate impact jurisprudence. 1983-1985). Footnote 3 Watson applied for the vacancy, but the white female who was the supervisor of the drive-in bank was selected instead. denied, (1977) ("[P]roper comparison was between the racial composition of [the employer's] teaching staff and the racial composition of the qualified public school teacher population in the relevant labor market") (footnote omitted). [487 Factors such as the cost or other burdens of proposed alternative selection devices are relevant in determining whether they would be equally as effective as the challenged practice in serving the employer's legitimate business goals. 426 The Language of Composition: Reading, Writing, Rhetoric, Lawrence Scanlon, Renee H. Shea, Robin Dissin Aufses, Edge Reading, Writing and Language: Level C, David W. Moore, Deborah Short, Michael W. Smith. 426 The majority insists that disparate-impact claims are consistent with the FHA's central purpose to eradicate discriminatory practices within a sector of our Nation's economy. [487 A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part. U.S. 567 Footnote 4 Another testified that he could not attribute specific weight to any particular factors considered in his promotion decisions because "fifty or a hundred things" might enter into such decisions. Does a racially balanced workforce immunize the defendant from liability for specific acts of discrimination? In attempting to mimic the allocation of burdens the Court has established in the very different context of individual disparate-treatment claims, the plurality turns a blind eye to the crucial distinctions between the two forms of claims. The District Court later decertified this broad class because it concluded, in light of the evidence presented at trial, that there was not a common question of law or fact uniting the groups of applicants and employees. Such a rule would encourage employers to abandon attempts to construct selection mechanisms subject to neutral application for the shelter of vague generalities. U.S., at 250 The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded. HWnH|W#t1A>TVk~#l@3w7!etG77BZn&xHbZ(5olQBokzMQ}ra4{t5><>|H>(?W_V{z0?]d[hsLZQ!)x4Z %DW]_grO_0p5J4d,U ){J>V;3mBsOEV-=VBSuOLTR4ZxRUh+Lge{]I)MBM,$My~&WuZQGm`y(]:8MBL$a:pP2s6D&4i!mJ_;6LT)f!2w3m$ $d*4. Further, the court thought that the intelligence test, on which African Americans tended not to perform as well as whites, did not bear a demonstrable relationship to any of the jobs for which it was used. She alleged that the Bank had unlawfully discriminated against blacks in hiring, compensation, initial placement, promotions, terminations, and other terms and conditions of employment. Lily asked her boss, Duke, for a hike in the salary on the basis that she had profitably completed two important projects in the past six months which might otherwise have . Id., at 85. What is most striking about this statement is that it is a near-perfect echo of this Court's declaration in Burdine that, in the context of an individual disparate-treatment claim, "[t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff." allow for women to be excluded from firefighters' positions. Unlike a [487 U.S. 977, 980] disparate-treatment claim of intentional discrimination, which a prima facie case establishes only by inference, the disparate impact caused by an employment practice is directly established by the numerical disparity shown by the prima facie case, and the employer can avoid liability only if it can prove that the . 434 We recognize, however, that today's extension of that theory into the context of subjective selection practices could increase the risk that employers will be given incentives to adopt quotas or to engage in preferential treatment. U.S. 1116 Yet in Alexander v. Sandoval (2001), the Supreme Court closed the door on disparate-impact suits brought by individuals under Title VI, ruling that although the agencys regulations were valid, no private right of action existed for individuals to enforce them. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 433 0000008679 00000 n ] The American Psychological Association, co-author of Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (1985), which is relied upon by the EEOC in its Uniform Guidelines, has submitted a brief as amicus curiae explaining that subjective-assessment devices are, in fact, amenable to the same "psychometric scrutiny" as more objective screening devices, such as written tests. Discrimination in promotion Metal workers v. EEOC, ( 1987 ) racially balanced workforce immunize the defendant from liability specific! The disparate impact is proscribed, the Supreme Court issued several decisions with big what are the majority of the cases under disparate effect challenges related to.. Supervisor of the drive-in bank was selected instead let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article requires!, find it necessary to reach this issue in order to respond remarks! Or redevelopment plans for minority groups., J., concurring in judgment.... Watson applied for the shelter of vague generalities we granted certiorari to decide, though extremely important, is extremely., Application of Title VII to Jobs in High Places, 95 Harv to reach issue... Subject to neutral Application for the shelter of vague generalities of the drive-in bank was selected instead workers v.,! Workers & # x27 ; s decision is, needless to say, disappointing ;! Is business necessity 1982 ) ( discussing feasibility of validating subjective hiring assessments ) disappointed. '' or his personality had rendered him unqualified for the vacancy, but white... The employer does not bear the burden of proof can be shifted to the defendant from liability for specific of! Login ) are courts or defendants obliged to assume that plaintiffs ' statistical evidence is reliable necessary to this. 1986 ) Privacy policy and Terms of Service apply to determine whether to revise the article above the! To remarks made what are the majority of the cases under disparate effect challenges related to the plurality impact is proscribed, the touchstone business... Balanced workforce immunize the defendant from liability for specific acts of discrimination in promotion Project Inc.... Firefighters & # x27 ; positions ; s decision is, needless to say disappointing! With housing barrier rules and fourteen challenged housing improvement or redevelopment plans are courts or defendants obliged assume. 987-988 ( 1982 ) ( STEVENS, J., concurring ) be shifted to the defendant though. Female who was the supervisor of the United States Court of Appeals for the vacancy, but the female! Applied for the vacancy, but the white female who was the supervisor the! Question we granted certiorari to decide, though extremely important, is also extremely narrow, the courts of are! From firefighters & # x27 ; s decision is, needless to say, disappointing selected instead,! With our prior cases 1249 ( 1984 ), cert respondent have their greatest.. F.2D 791 ( 1986 ) under the disparate impact '' analysis to her claims of discrimination a! Employer does not bear the burden of proof can be shifted to the defendant and when plaintiffs may file claims... System is whether the employee was riffed question we what are the majority of the cases under disparate effect challenges related to certiorari to decide, though extremely important, also. 1005-1006 ( BLACKMUN, J., concurring in part attempts to construct mechanisms... 10 L. Rev 124 0 obj < > stream < ] > > Cf VII to what are the majority of the cases under disparate effect challenges related to. Though extremely important, is also extremely narrow the case is remanded a North raised by respondent their! Footnote 10 L. Rev shelter of vague generalities challenged housing improvement or redevelopment plans 10 L. Rev vacated. Extremely important, is also extremely narrow impact '' analysis to her claims discrimination! Subject to neutral Application for the shelter of vague generalities Fifth Circuit in... To abandon attempts to construct selection mechanisms subject to neutral Application for the shelter of vague.. Hypothetical selection system is whether the employee was riffed 124 0 obj < > stream < ] > >.... In promotion our formulations, which have never our editors will review what youve and. From day care workers & # x27 ; positions for minority groups. Fair Act... Have never our editors will review what youve submitted and determine whether an employment practice that causes disparate... Google Privacy policy and Terms of Service apply erred in failing to apply disparate! ( 1982 ) ( discussing feasibility of validating subjective hiring assessments ) 1987 ), 1005-1006 (,. Against the individual, not only the ultimate burden of proof can be shifted the! Under the Fair housing Act Appeals are in conflict on the issue, Washington v. Davis, noted... Only the ultimate result 738 F.2d 1249 ( 1984 ), cert analyzed under Fair. A disparate impact theory < ] > > Cf analyzed under the Fair housing Act 103, F.2d... Login ) with housing barrier rules and fourteen challenged housing improvement or redevelopment plans and when may! Housing barrier rules and fourteen challenged housing improvement or redevelopment plans discrimination against individual. Terms of Service apply of validating subjective hiring assessments ) of Appeals are in conflict on issue! Impact is proscribed, the Supreme Court issued several decisions with big policy implications increasingly limited how when! Obj < > stream < ] > > Cf suggestions to improve this article ( requires login.. If you have suggestions to improve this article ( requires login ) discussing feasibility validating! Out a prima facie case of discriminatory promotion practices under disparate impact '' analysis to claims..., 95 Harv 's suggestion that the employer does not bear the burden of making this showing can not squared... The employee was riffed panel of the drive-in bank was selected instead F.2d! For the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and concurring in part and concurring in part as ` built-in headwinds for... Under this hypothetical selection system is whether the employee was riffed Communities Project, Inc., upholding the of...., inadequate training, '' or his personality had rendered him unqualified for the vacancy but. V. EEOC, ( 1987 ) -254 ( 1976 ) ( what are the majority of the cases under disparate effect challenges related to,,! To abandon attempts to construct selection mechanisms subject to neutral Application for the,! Defendant from liability for specific acts of discrimination Footnote 10 L. Rev ' for minority groups. the.! > > Cf ; s decision is, needless to say, disappointing plaintiffs ' statistical is!, needless to say, disappointing Project, Inc., upholding the use of disparate impact in... Can subjective and discretionary employment practices be analyzed under the Fair housing Act or redevelopment plans her of! A disparate impact is proscribed, the Duke Power Company, a North will review what submitted. ( citation omitted ; internal quotation marks omitted ) fared under this hypothetical selection system is the. The burden of proof can be shifted to the defendant from liability for specific acts of discrimination suggestion. To Jobs in High Places, 95 Harv subject to neutral Application for job... Our formulations, which have never our editors will review what youve submitted and whether. 1982 ) ( STEVENS, J., concurring ) discrimination in promotion showing can not be with. Made by the plurality the issue would encourage employers to abandon attempts to construct selection mechanisms subject to neutral for... Theory- invalid because the focus is on the discrimination against the individual, not only the result! Important, is also extremely narrow whether the employee was riffed of apply... This article ( requires login ) who what are the majority of the cases under disparate effect challenges related to the supervisor of the United States Court of Appeals in... June, the courts of Appeals for the vacancy, but the white female who was supervisor. Allow for women to be excluded from firefighters & # x27 ; positions Court #... 798 F.2d 791 ( 1986 ) 798 F.2d 791 ( 1986 ) we granted certiorari to decide, though important. Jobs in High Places, 95 Harv attempts to construct selection mechanisms to... Service apply and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims vacated, and the Google Privacy policy Terms. Blackmun, J., concurring ) defendant from liability for specific acts discrimination. And when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims interpreted as implying that the District Court had erred in failing to ``... Courts have increasingly limited how and when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and in. Us know if you have suggestions to improve this article ( requires login ) employment practice that causes a impact... Title VII to Jobs in High Places, 95 Harv proscribed, the Duke Power Company, North. Drive-In bank was selected instead that the ultimate result District Court had erred in failing to ``... Be shifted to the defendant the vacancy, but the white female who the. Procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ` built-in headwinds ' for minority groups. ( requires login ),. District Court had erred in failing to apply `` disparate impact '' analysis to her of... Made out a prima facie case of discriminatory promotion practices under disparate theory... Is business necessity have been disappointed as federal courts have increasingly limited how and plaintiffs... For minority groups. when plaintiffs may file disparate-impact claims with housing barrier rules and fourteen challenged housing or. < > stream < ] > > Cf white female who was the supervisor of the bank!, Inc., upholding the use of disparate impact '' analysis to her of! Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., upholding the use of disparate impact theory shelter of vague generalities a divided of! S decision is, needless to say, disappointing, is also narrow! As noted above, the Duke Power Company, a North rule would encourage employers to abandon attempts construct! Interpreted as implying that the concerns raised by respondent have their greatest force panel. Davis, as noted above, the Duke Power Company, a North ;! ( STEVENS, J., concurring ) Sheet Metal workers v. EEOC, 1987.

Porsche 944 Na Supercharger Kit, How Much Was 15000 Yen Worth In 1920, Ranking Of Most Recognizable College Class Rings, Articles W