Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
The same interests are at work in the interplay between the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions of Title VII: Congress imposes liability on employers for unintentional discrimination, in order to rid the work-place of "practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation."
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 ...
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 ...
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 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.
Often, employers will use BFOQ as a defense to a Disparate Treatment theory employment discrimination. BFOQ cannot be a cost justification in wage gaps between different groups of employees. [96] Cost can be considered when an employer must balance privacy and safety concerns with the number of positions that an employer are trying to fill. [96]
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in relevant part, and expressed the view that the proper framework to apply to a Title VII challenge to an allegedly discretionary promotion system would be disparate treatment analysis (which involves the question whether an employer has, with a discriminatory intent or motive ...