This paper provides a concise overview of three foundational concepts in employment discrimination law: disparate impact, disparate treatment, and reasonable accommodation. It explains how disparate impact claims arise when neutral employment practices disproportionately affect a protected group, how disparate treatment claims involve intentional discrimination against individuals or protected classes, and how reasonable accommodation obligations require employers to adjust workplace conditions under statutes such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For each concept, the paper outlines typical plaintiff structures, illustrative examples, and the primary legal defenses available to employers.
Employment discrimination law in the United States is organized around three core concepts: disparate impact, disparate treatment, and reasonable accommodation. Each concept defines a distinct way in which an employer may unlawfully disadvantage employees or job applicants, and each carries its own litigation profile and available defenses.
Disparate impact employment discrimination occurs when an employment practice has a greater adverse effect on one protected group than it does on other groups, even if the practice appears neutral on its face. For example, a non-driving-related job in New York City that requires employees to hold a driver's license might affect members of different racial groups in different ways. If a disparate impact is established, the employer must prove that the practice in question is actually linked to job performance.
Disparate impact cases generally involve a greater number of plaintiffs, because they concern how large groups of people are affected by a company's employment practices — although a single plaintiff may bring a disparate impact suit as well. The primary defense to a disparate impact lawsuit is demonstrating that the challenged practice does have a genuine relationship to the job.
Disparate treatment claims allege 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 brought against Hooters restaurant alleged disparate treatment because male servers were not hired at the establishment. Generally, there is a single plaintiff in a disparate treatment lawsuit; however, if a company's employment policies are discriminatory on their face, there could be numerous plaintiffs.
The main defense to a disparate treatment lawsuit is that the plaintiff was not treated differently from similarly situated individuals. An ancillary defense is that the plaintiff was treated differently, but that the differential treatment falls within a bona fide occupational qualification — a recognized legal exception permitting certain otherwise discriminatory employment criteria when they are essential to the job.
"Employer duties to adjust conditions for protected employees"
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.