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 ...
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.
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. [1]
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]
The Court then examined section 602, the section of Title VI under which the disparate-impact regulation was promulgated, to determine whether it created an implied private right of action. It began by noting that certain "rights-creating" language that was present in section 601 and Cannon relied on for its holding, was absent from section 602 ...
When you use disparate impact, you grant arbitrary power to the government to prosecute people selectively,” Randall said. “There is a deep history, which we should not forget – not least ...
Disparate impact [ edit ] Courts treat a challenged action differently if it is sex-neutral, or contains no explicit use of sex classifications, but results in adverse impact disproportionately burdening one sex more harshly than the other. [ 3 ]
Gorsuch wrote that "Nearly 80 years removed from ''International Shoe'', corporations continue to receive special jurisdictional protections in the name of the Constitution. Less clear is why." Gorsuch favored a simpler "But-for" causation test instead, noting that the majority's decision might have a disparate impact on small businesses. [1]