5 pages in length. Both disparate impact and disparate treatment are associated with on-the-job discrimination; whether unintentional or deliberate, these two elements of employment law work to protect those unlawfully singled out. The primary difference between disparate impact and disparate treatment is the intent of each action, with the former reflecting the absence of discriminatory intent and the latter making a deliberate point to illegally categorize someone; however, even when an employer does not mean to discriminate, he or she is still liable for the unintentional behavior. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Name of Research Paper File: LM1_TLCDispImp.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
impact and disparate treatment is the intent of each action, with the former reflecting the absence of discriminatory intent and the latter making a deliberate point to illegally categorize someone;
however, even when an employer does not mean to discriminate, he or she is still liable for the unintentional behavior. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. - 401 U.S. 424, 431-2
(1971) - represents the first time the concept of disparate impact came before the Supreme Court, a case out of which ultimately emerged Title VII to disallow "not only overt
discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation" (HR-Guide, 2001). One of the most important points of this ruling is how inadvertent discrimination does
not provide an excuse for the unlawful behavior or procedure, inasmuch as there still remains concern over whether or not such behavior or procedure is nothing more than "built-in headwinds
for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability" (HR-Guide, 2001). Moreover, the application of "facially neutral" (HR-Guide, 2001) employment practices - as deemed not allowed by Title
VII - speaks to the potential - albeit unintentional - discrimination and inevitable "unjustified adverse impact" (HR-Guide, 2001) toward minority groups. It is not always a simple task to identify
what, exactly, is considered a violation of Title VII if one is not apprised of all its subtle nuances. For example, employers who impose such requirements as written tests,
subjective procedures (interviews), weight and/or height specifications and academic prerequisites are setting themselves up for possible legal problems. If charges are brought due to a perceived discriminatory procedure, one
way in which the employer may avert legal ramifications through disparate impact is if the plaintiff cannot produce the statistical comparisons required to illustrate how the action was truly adverse