The case of Connecticut v. Teal revolved around a promotion test administered by the state of Connecticut's Department of Income Maintenance, which disproportionately disqualified African American candidates. The plaintiffs, including Wilfred Teal who was an African American employee that failed the test but had seniority and satisfactory job performance reviews, argued this constituted racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Teal et al., stating that even if an employer could demonstrate no overall discriminatory impact (as more black than white employees were ultimately promoted), it did not justify using procedures that discriminate against some individuals based on their race. This ruling emphasized "disparate treatment" over "disparate impact," asserting each individual employee has a right to be free from racial discrimination in employment decisions.

The dissenting opinion in Connecticut v. Teal argued that the majority's interpretation of Title VII was too broad and could lead to absurd results. The dissenters believed that the law should not be interpreted to mean that any employment practice which leads to a racial imbalance is discriminatory, regardless of whether it was intended or necessary for business operations. They also disagreed with the idea that an employer can be held liable for discrimination even if they have taken steps to ensure equal opportunity overall. In their view, this would place an undue burden on employers and potentially force them into making race-conscious decisions in order to avoid liability, which goes against the goal of creating a color-blind society. Furthermore, they felt that allowing individuals who were not directly affected by alleged discrimination (like those who passed the test but claimed harm because others failed) lacked standing under Title VII.