Disparate TREATMENT vs. Disparate IMPACT
June 5, 2006Some otherwise very knowledgeable and smart HR folks, and perhaps even lawyers, may have difficulty understanding the difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact. Indeed, in some old Supreme Court cases, the supreme court justices appeared to begin to merge the two concepts somewhat.
I found that one of the clearest explanations for disparate treatment versus disparate impact may be found in Ross Runkel’s blog. Among the many impressive postings in this blog is a section entitled: “Employment Law 101,” which I believe is worthy of your time.
What is particularly helpful, I think, in this blog, is how clearly the author writes! But, more to point of the present posting, Ross Runkel does a wonderful job of clarifying what disparate treatment is compared to disparate impact. Here are some of the key points, but I urge you to read the details in
the posting as well.
According to Ross, disparate treatment has several steps, including the basic concept, which he defines as “the employee is claiming that the employer treated her differently than other employees who were in a similar situation.” Then, he goes into some specific details about the prima facie case, the employer’s rebuttal, and the pretext step that must be argued by the plaintiff.
Diparate IMPACT on the other hand, operates quite differently if one is to proof that discrimination has or has not occurred. According to Ross Runkel, disparate impact occurs if: “as matter of statistics, [employment practices] have a greater impact on one group than on another.” Read more on his description of disparate impact here.
Ross Runkel notes that in disparate impact:
if the employees prove that a practice causes a disparate impact, then the employer must demonstrate that the practice “is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity”
He quite correctly points out that disparate impact cases “are complex (and expensive) because they require the use of experts and involve sophisticated statistical methods…”
Note that proving intention is unnecessary for the plaintiff to win in a disparate IMPACT case. Disparate impact has been used in arguing hiring, promotion, pay, termination, and other kinds of cases.
Related Posts
More on the Supreme Court’s Raytheon decision
Age Discrimination and Disparate Impact: How Will the Supreme Court Weigh In?
Coming soon: is requiring laborers to have high school diplomas race discrimination? (George’s upcoming posts on statistics & disparate impact)
Supreme Court to decide age discrimination disparate impact issue
The Professor Offers Free Employment Law Class: Don’t Miss This Opportunity
`Sphere: Related Content`
Permalink 5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
If you want to leave a feedback to this post or to some other user´s comment, simply fill out the form below.
Pingback by George’s Employment Blawg » Follow-Up to EEOC’s Investigation of FedEx’s Employment Testing
[...] EEOC has apparently raised concerns that this test battery has a disparate impact on minorities. [...]
Pingback by George’s Employment Blawg » Plain Talk About Employment Testing From a Straight Shooter
[...] “Disparate TREATMENT vs. Disparate IMPACT” [...]
Comment by Tim Syzek
What about a federal agency employee (GS-09)who received a written reprimand for misuse of email, with a 2-year probation? This was the minimum disciplinary measure that the employer (SES) could give at the time.
Then the same SES made a statement as the subject matter expert (SME) on an employment document, which was proven false by the agency and which the SES knew to be false when he made it. The position was for a GS-11 and the applicant/employee (same as above paragraph) never received an interview. The agency admitted wrongdoing but did nothing further to discipline the SES, except let the 2-year expiration lapse on the employment document.
I believe that the GS-09 federal employee received “disparate treatment” by the federal agency, since he had been treated more harshly than the employer/SES, for an incident which was a lesser transgression of the federal rules than the one the SES committed.
Pingback by
[...] the same work rule (or another of comparable seriousness).” Aramburu involved classic “disparate treatment” evidence — evidence of better treatment of employees differing in the protected [...]
Comment by Tunkoo
A really worthfull information share by you. Thanks a lot!
http://employee-benefit.blogspot.com/