Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil ...
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. [1]
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 defines two types of discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate impact.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), who has been enforcing Title VII since it came into effect in 1965, has the power to periodically issue an 'enforcement guidance' explaining how employers could use the backgrounds of potential employees (including their ...
Employment practices that do not directly discriminate against a protected category may still be illegal if they produce a disparate impact on members of a protected group. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that have a discriminatory impact, unless they are related to job performance.
Employees must prove that the employment practices used by an employer causes disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and/or national origin. [37] To help with cases, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission established a four-fifths rule where federal enforcement agencies takes a "selection rate for any race, sex, or ...
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The alternative to a "disparate treatment" theory is a "disparate impact" theory. A disparate impact violation is when an employer is shown to have used a specific employment practice, neutral on its face but that caused a substantial adverse impact to a protected group, and cannot be justified as serving a legitimate business goal for the ...
A group of nonwhite cannery workers including Frank Atonio filed suit in District Court citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 complaining that the Wards Cove Packing Company, a company that operated several Alaskan salmon canneries, was using discriminatory hiring practices that resulted in a large number of the skilled permanent jobs that mostly did not involve working in a cannery ...