Disparate-impact claims in adverse impact cases are customarily under the ADEA act. The plaintiffs bringing the claims must show evidence of ill-treatment by employers based on race, gender, or age. Therefore, the employee must prove through direct or circumstantial evidence that the discrimination was intentional. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act recognizes the disparate-impact theory as a viable theory of discrimination. The employee must prove through direct or circumstantial evidence that the discrimination was intentional. In contrast, a disparate-impact claim does not require proof of an intention to discriminate. Disparate-impact claims in adverse impact cases include showing how an employment practice harms a protected group.
For more information on disparate-impact claims in adverse impact cases, click
SELECTED SUPREME COURT DECISIONS INVOLVING ADVERSE IMPACT CASES
The Supreme court has long handled disparate-impact claims in adverse impact cases. For example, the Supreme Court in Phillips versus Martin Marietta Corporation holds on Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. The act states that employers cannot discriminate based on sex, plus other factors such as having school-age children. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in Espinoz versus Farah entitles non-citizens to protection by the act. Also, a citizenship requirement may violate Title VII if it has the purpose of discriminating based on national origin. Title VII prohibits racial discrimination against whites and blacks in McDonald versus Santa Fe transportation adverse impact cases.
For more information on selected supreme court decisions involving adverse impact cases, click
DISPARATE-IMPACT CLAIMS AND DISPARATE-IMPACT CLAIMS IN RICCI VERSUS DESTEFANO ADVERSE MPACT CASE
Disparate-impact claims in adverse impact cases may have significant implications on both disparate impact and disparate treatment discrimination claims. The discrimination is evident when the US Supreme Court issued its highly-anticipated and highly-divisive decision in the white firefighters’ case. Disparate-treatment claims present the traditional case of intentional discrimination. Notably, disparate-impact claims do not require proof of an intent to discriminate. In Ricci, the Court held that actions influenced by race would subject an employer to disparate-treatment discrimination. The actions are despite being taken in a good-faith effort to avoid possible disparate-impact claims. Lastly, a group of 17 white firefighters sued the city for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
For more information on disparate-impact claims in Ricci versus Destefano adverse impact case, click
Additional attachments
>> Download
