Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Employment Discrimination
Disparate impact employment discrimination suggests that an employment practice has a greater impact on one protected group than it does on other groups. For example, a non-driving related job in New York city, which required the employee have a driver's license might impact members of different races in different ways. If there is a disparate impact, then the employer has to prove that the questionable practice is actually linked to the performance of the job. Disparate impact cases generally have a greater number of plaintiffs, because they deal with how large groups of people are impacted by a company's employment practices, though a single plaintiff can bring a disparate impact suit, as well. The main defense to a disparate impact lawsuit is that the practice in question does actually have a relationship to the job.
Disparate treatment alleges that an employer discriminated against a specific, protected person, or that a company's employment policies intentionally discriminate against a protected class. For example, the lawsuit that was brought against Hooters' restaurant alleged disparate treatment because male servers were not hired at the restaurant. Generally there is a single plaintiff in a disparate treatment lawsuit, though if a company's employment policies are facially discriminatory, there could be numerous plaintiffs. The main defense to a disparate treatment lawsuit is that the plaintiff was not treated differently than similarly-situated people. An ancillary defense to a disparate treatment claim is that the plaintiff was treated differently, but that the discrimination is part of a bona-fide occupational qualification.
Reasonable accommodation refers to the accommodations that an employer must provide to an employee under federal anti-discrimination laws. The term is most frequently used to describe actions under the Americans with Disabilities Act, though Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 may imply a duty for reasonable accommodation of certain things, such as allowing a nursing mother time to breast pump during the workday. A reasonable accommodations lawsuit is almost always going to involve a single plaintiff. The first defense is that the accommodations were reasonable. However, there are several factors relating to exactly what type of accommodation an employer must make, and an employer can claim that the accommodation was too costly or otherwise prohibitive, and actually be excused from providing the accommodation.
DUNLAP V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Dunlap v. TVA Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2008) Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2008) Explain why the plaintiff's disparate impact claim failed? A claim of disparate impact implies that the employer (defendant) unintentionally discriminated against the job applicant (plaintiff) (Seiner, 2013, p. 287). Under Title VII, any hiring practice that is fair in form, but through its application is effectively discriminatory, is illegal (Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 2008).
Disparate Impact resides in many kinds of instances where cases of discrimination can be found. It can reside in the field of employment, health, and education (Bornholz & Heckman, 2004). In general, disparate impact is an inconsistency that violates the basic rights of an individual. This includes racial discrimination, unequal business/medical/education practices, age discrimination, and others. USCCR online defines "disparate impact" as follows. The adverse effect of a facially neutral practice
The policy required women to wear foundation, concealer, or powder, blush, mascara, and to make sure that they have lip color on at all times. Not only did women have to wear makeup, they were required to have a makeover by an image consultant. Once the employee and the image consultant had devised the employee's "personal best" look, then the employee's picture would be taken, and their appearance would
Smith et al. v. City of Jackson, MS, et al., No. 03-1160 (2005). In sum, this ruling allows employees to prevail in an ADEA claim against their employers without proving that the employer intended to discriminate based on the employee's age." (2006) In the second caser under review in this study, specifically a case of Dolores Oubre, in Louisiana whose employer, Entergy Operations, Inc., "instituted a new employee evaluation process
Discrimination in Employment Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically prohibits discrimination in the workplace based upon a candidate's "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" (Title VII, 1964). The act also makes it illegal to refuse to hire employees based upon membership in these specific, protected categories (Title VII, 1964). It is also illegal to refuse to promote individuals based upon membership in such categories (Title VII,
Discrimination at the Lumber Yard Facts: A job that entails the act of heavy physical lifting, by virtue of its very nature as well as its advertised job description is publicized in the 'help wanted' section of the local paper. Few, if any, other physical or educational qualifications are needed for the job. A man of forty-five who is visibly out of shape applies for the laboring position. During the initial employment