The U.S. Supreme Court case Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 1987 dealt with issues of racial discrimination in the workplace under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff, Edith Watson, a black woman employed by Fort Worth Bank & Trust alleged that she was denied four promotions due to her race and that subjective decision-making processes were used to discriminate against her. The court held that even if an employer's decisions are based on subjective criteria like judgment or discretion, they can still be analyzed for potential racial bias under disparate impact theory - which considers whether practices disproportionately affect certain groups protected by law despite not being overtly discriminatory. However, it also ruled that statistical evidence alone is insufficient proof of such discrimination; plaintiffs must show specific policies led to disparities and defendants may justify their practices as necessary for business operations.

In the dissenting opinion for Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to apply disparate impact analysis to subjective employment practices was correct but criticized its approach towards burden shifting and proof requirements. He contended that the court should not have deviated from established precedents regarding these issues. In his view, once a plaintiff has shown a significant statistical disparity caused by an employer’s practice, it is up to the employer to prove their actions were justified by business necessity. The majority's requirement for plaintiffs to identify specific elements of subjective hiring processes causing disparities would be often impossible due to lack of access or expertise in sophisticated statistical analyses required. This could potentially shield discriminatory practices from legal scrutiny if they are subjectively applied rather than formally codified into objective criteria.