Disparate Impact and Discrimination under Employment Law
⚖️ Disparate Impact and Discrimination in Employment Law
1. Understanding Discrimination in Employment Law
Employment discrimination occurs when an employee or job applicant is treated unfairly or unequally based on protected characteristics such as race, sex, age, religion, disability, or national origin.
There are two main types of discrimination:
Disparate Treatment: Intentional discrimination where an individual is treated differently because of a protected trait.
Disparate Impact: Practices that are neutral on their face but have a disproportionately negative effect on a protected group.
2. What is Disparate Impact?
Disparate Impact refers to employment practices or policies that, while neutral and applied equally, result in a disproportionate adverse effect on members of a protected class.
It does not require proof of intent to discriminate.
Employers must justify such practices by showing they are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
3. Elements of Disparate Impact
To establish a case of disparate impact, the plaintiff usually must:
Identify a specific employment policy or practice.
Show that this policy causes a significant adverse impact on a protected group.
The burden then shifts to the employer to show that the practice is job-related and necessary.
If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff can still prevail by proving an alternative practice with less discriminatory impact exists.
4. Case Law on Disparate Impact
📌 Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)
Facts: Duke Power Company required a high school diploma and passing scores on standardized tests for certain jobs. These requirements disproportionately excluded African American applicants.
Issue: Whether these requirements, though neutral on their face, violated employment discrimination principles.
Holding: The Court held that the requirements had a disparate impact on African Americans and were not shown to be related to job performance.
Significance: Established the disparate impact theory in employment law, emphasizing that employers must prove job relevance for seemingly neutral policies.
📌 Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio (1989)
Facts: Employees alleged that hiring practices had a disparate impact on minority workers.
Holding: The Court ruled that plaintiffs must specifically identify the practice causing the disparity.
Significance: Clarified the burden of proof in disparate impact cases, focusing on identifying specific policies.
📌 Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975)
Facts: Plaintiffs challenged employment tests as having a disparate impact on African American workers.
Holding: The Court emphasized the need for valid and reliable employment tests.
Significance: Strengthened the employer’s burden to validate employment practices used in hiring and promotions.
5. Discrimination vs. Disparate Impact: Key Differences
| Aspect | Disparate Treatment | Disparate Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Intentional discrimination | Unintentional effect from neutral policy |
| Proof Required | Direct evidence of intent | Statistical evidence showing adverse effect |
| Employer Defense | Legitimate non-discriminatory reason | Business necessity and job-relatedness |
| Focus | Individual cases | Group-wide effects |
6. Common Examples of Disparate Impact
Height or weight requirements excluding certain groups.
Educational requirements that disproportionately exclude minorities.
Testing or screening procedures unrelated to job performance.
Seniority systems affecting certain demographics unfairly.
7. Employer Obligations under Employment Law
Employers must analyze employment practices to identify potential disparate impacts.
They must be prepared to justify policies as necessary for the job.
Where possible, adopt alternative, less discriminatory practices.
Maintain fair hiring, promotion, and compensation policies to avoid discrimination claims.
8. Summary
Disparate impact is a key concept in employment law protecting groups from the unintended consequences of neutral employment policies.
The burden of proof involves showing adverse effects and job-relatedness.
Landmark cases like Griggs v. Duke Power laid the foundation for the doctrine.
Employers must carefully design and implement employment practices to avoid discriminatory effects.
RELATED Blog
0 comments