OPPapers.com Essay Index >> Business >> Disparate Impact
We have many free term papers and essays on Disparate Impact. 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 vs. Disparate Treatment. Disparate Impact vs. Disparate
Treatment What is the difference between Disparate ...
Disparate Impact vs Disparate Treatment Case Study. ... “Disparate impact” is a
legal theory for proving unlawful employment discrimination. ...
Disparate Impact & Disparate Treatment. ... The district court agreed, disallowing the
plaintiff's claim under the disparate impact theory of Title VII. ...
Disparate Impact v. Disparate Treatment. ... Of the above cases, one illustrates disparate
impact while the other illustrates disparate treatment. ...
Disparate Impact. Disparate Impact Pashaun Management 434 October 25, 2005
Disparate Impact Disparate impact occurs when an employer ...
Submitted by zACHERY on February 13, 2006
Category: Business
Words: 807 | Pages: 4
Views: 196
Popularity Rank: 49,973
Average Member Grade: N/A (Add a Comment / Grade this Paper)
Disparate Impact
Pashaun
Management 434
October 25, 2005
Disparate Impact
Disparate impact occurs when an employer uses a system that is not purposefully discriminatory, but nevertheless has a negative impact on a class protected under Title VII (Bennett-Alexander, 2003). EEOC vs Dial Corp., S.D. Iowa, No. 3-02-CV-10109, 2/3/05 is a case that illustrates disparate impact and how an employer may attempt to use a screening process in order to discriminate and prevent a specific group of individuals from being employed.
In September 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Dial Corporation alleging that the strength test instituted by the company was discriminatory against women (EEOC v. Dial Corporation (Iowa)). The test required the repeated lifting of 35 pounds to a height of 65 inches. The pass rate of the strength test was disproportionate because the male applicants passed at a 97% success rate in comparison to 40% of the female applicants (Rosenblaum, 2005). According to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, there is a 20% margin allowable between the outcome of the majority (men) and minority (women) under a given screening process (Bennett-Alexander, 2003). Disparate impact has been consistently demonstrated when the rate of selection for groups protected under Title VII is less than 80% (Bennett-Alexander, 2003).
The case went to trial and a jury found that Dial’s use of this screening test was purposefully discriminatory against women. The presiding judge stated “the test was also illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it had a disparate impact against female applicants and was not justified by Dials business necessity” (EEOC) Dial was ordered to pay over $3 million to the 52 women named in the lawsuit in order to resolve the discrimination. The strength test was found to be harder than performance...
You must Login to view the entire paper.
If you are not a member yet, Sign Up for free!