Disparate Impact / Disparate Treatment

Disparate Impact / Disparate Treatment

DISPARATE IMPACT - DISPARATE TREATMENT

The objective of this work is to prepare a case study that illustrates disparate impact and a different case that illustrates disparate treatment. Compare and contrast the two cases. Reviewed will be: (a) a brief description of the relevant facts; (b) the ruling and reasoning of the court; - the specific implications of the ruling; and (d) appropriate case citations.

Oftentimes the difference between the 'disparate treatment' and 'disparate impact' of employees is misunderstood. This review will examine two cases in order to make the differentiation in these two types of claims against employers. The first case examined in this study is one in which managers at the Ford Company in Michigan sued their employer on a 'disparate impact' claim. The second case examined is one in which an individual sued her employer in Louisiana under the 'disparate impact' claim and the court made it clear that the case was in actuality a 'disparate treatment' type case.

THE FACTS

In one case approximately 60 managers sued the Ford Company in a Michigan state court making the claim that the performance management process had a 'disparate impact' on older workers. Stated in the work entitled: "A Cutback that Cuts the Wrong Way" is that: "Employment discrimination claims generally are brought under one of two theories. A 'disparate treatment' claim of one of intentional discrimination and alleges that an employer treated employees in a protected group differently from employees in a nonprotected group because of their membership in that group. A 'disparate impact' claim on the other hand, focuses on a neutral rules or practice that affected a protected group more harshly than others." (2002) A Michigan Judge decided on July 31, 2001 that the "Ford employees could pursue their age discrimination claim on a disparate impact theory." (The Cutback that Cuts the Wrong Way, 2002) Stated is that: "Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the law under which the Ford employees sued, prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status and marital status. MCLS 37.2101 et seq." (Ibid)

According to Campbell in the work entitled: "Disparate Impact Claims Available Under the ADEA": "The United States Supreme Court ruled on March 30, 2005, in a matter of first impression, that disparate-impact claims are available to employees under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). 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 in which employees were ranked according to two criteria, performance and potential, in comparison with their peers. Ultimately, employees were placed into one of nine groups, and the lowest 10% of the employees had to be placed in the lowest group. Oubre found herself in this group. Given a choice between a severance package and an action plan for one year to upgrade her ranking, she accepted the severance package and then sued." (The Cutback that Cuts the Wrong Way, 2002)