Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Under the 80% rule mentioned above, unsuccessful female job applicants would have a prima facie case of disparate impact "discrimination" against the department if they passed the 100-pound test at a rate less than 80% of the rate at which men passed the test.
Case history; Prior: Judgment for defendants, 392 F. Supp. 1276 (E.D. Mo. 1975); reversed, 534 F.2d 805 (8th Cir. 1976); certiorari granted, 429 U.S. 1037 (year).: Holding; In addition to considering the correct relevant labor market in a Title VII disparate-impact case, consider whether the impact that could have been caused by actions taken before Title VII was applied to the employer.
It is possible for a discriminating state to hide its true intention, and one possible solution is for disparate impact to be considered as stronger evidence of discriminatory intent. [80] This debate, though, is currently academic, since the Supreme Court has not changed its basic approach as outlined in Arlington Heights .
The Pareto principle may apply to fundraising, i.e. 20% of the donors contributing towards 80% of the total. The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity [1] [2]) states that for many outcomes, roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes (the "vital few").
Disparate Impact: Although an employer may not intend to discriminate based on racial characteristics, its policies nonetheless have an adverse effect based upon race. Discrimination may occur at any point in the employment process, including pre-employment inquiries, hiring practices, compensation, work assignments and conditions, privileges ...
The 4% rule is difficult to apply to every single person across the board, particularly as they are subject to different tax rates and have different risk profiles and cash flow needs, Gerrety said.
Disparate impact The disparate impact argument complements the disparate treatment argument by stating that the boycott harms Jewish or Israeli entities, even if that is not its intent. That is, the boycott is "fair in form, but discriminatory in operation". [ 36 ]
The new language was crafted as a compromise designed to eliminate the need for direct evidence of discriminatory intent, which is often difficult to obtain, but without embracing an unqualified “disparate impact” test that would invalidate many legitimate voting procedures. S. REP. NO. 97–417, at 28–29, 31–32, 99 (1982) [88] [87]