Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
(1) The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. (2) The employer must then articulate, through admissible evidence, a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. (3) To prevail, the plaintiff must prove that the employer's stated reason is a pretext to hide discrimination.
In United States employment discrimination law, McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", [1] that lacks direct evidence of discrimination.
[2] Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question. [3] This is the "business necessity" defense. [1]
Intergroup approaches to prejudice reduction have been studied a great deal in laboratory settings, as well as outside of the laboratory, particularly in schools. [1] Many intergroup prejudice reduction approaches are grounded in one of 3 main theoretical perspectives: interdependence, [2] intergroup contact, [3] and social identity. [4]
One approach that mitigates discrimination by emphasizing skills is workforce development programs. Federally funded job training caters to the unemployed and minority groups by focusing on providing opportunities for them including those who have been discriminated against.
Stigma, though powerful and enduring, is not inevitable, and can be challenged. There are two important aspects to challenging stigma: challenging the stigmatization on the part of stigmatizers and challenging the internalized stigma of the stigmatized. To challenge stigmatization, Campbell et al. 2005 [32] summarise three main approaches.
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]
In practice, the third step is the most difficult step for plaintiffs to achieve successfully. [ citation needed ] [ 13 ] This framework differs from earlier strategies for resolving employment discrimination cases in that it affords the employee a lower burden of proof for rebutting an employer's response to the initial prima facie cases.