OPPapers.com Essay Index >> Business >> Disparate Impact V. Disparate Treatment
We have many free term papers and essays on Disparate Impact V. Disparate Treatment. We also have a wide variety of research papers and book reports available to you for free. You can browse our collection of term papers or use our search engine.
Disparate Impact v. Disparate Treatment. Disparate Impact v. Disparate Treatment
When an employee (or employees) alleges discrimination ...
... holding that its analytical approach improperly merged disparate impact analysis
with disparate treatment analysis. (Raytheon Company v. Hernandez, Stetson Law ...
... (Supreme Courts of The United States, 2003) References Runkel, R. (nd,
nd). Disparate impact. ... Disparate treatment. ... v. Hernandez. ...
... the disparate-impact claim. The Ninth Circuit also held that in terms of the
disparate-treatment claim, it cited the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 US ...
... judgment for the employer on the disparate impact claim ... Disparate treatment alleges
intentional discrimination, ie that the decision-maker ... In Coleman v. School Bd ...
Submitted by Dana_Adam on March 7, 2006
Category: Business
Words: 786 | Pages: 4
Views: 311
Popularity Rank: 30,447
Average Member Grade: N/A (Add a Comment / Grade this Paper)
Disparate Impact v. Disparate Treatment
When an employee (or employees) alleges discrimination, s/he may bring suit under Title VII claiming one of two theories; 1) disparate impact or, 2) disparate treatment. According to our text, the suit “must fit into one theory or the other to be recognized under Title VII.” In a disparate impact claim, the claimant is not required to prove that the discrimination was intentional, instead, they need to prove that the employer utilizes employment practices that may appear neutral in their treatment of different groups, but in fact do indeed discriminate against one group and not another. In addition, these practices cannot be justified by business necessity. In a disparate treatment claim, the worker seeks to prove that the employer' has a discriminatory motive.
I. Disparate Impact
On February 3, 2005, a federal judge ordered the Dial Corporation to pay over $3 million to resolve a sex discrimination suit brought by the EEOC against The Dial Corporations Armour Star Meat Packing plant in Fort Madison, Iowa. The lawsuit claimed that Dial’s use of a strength test, which required the repeated lifting of 35 pounds to a height of 65 inches, discriminated against women. The case was based on a charge of discrimination filed by Paula Liles in 2000. Liles alleged that she was told that she had failed the test because, at 5'2", she was too short. The rational behind the case was that since only approximately 40% of female applicants passed the test, and virtually all male applicants passed the test, it was a discriminatory practice, and had a disparate impact on women. The ruling stated that the test has a disparate impact against women, and is not justified by Dial’s business necessity and is therefore illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior to the addition of the strength test in January 2000, women had successfully performed the jobs in the sausage-making department. In his ruling...
You must Login to view the entire paper.
If you are not a member yet, Sign Up for free!