Employment discrimination takes two main forms: and . Disparate treatment occurs when an employer intentionally treats someone differently based on a protected characteristic. It requires proving discriminatory intent.
Disparate impact happens when a seemingly neutral policy disproportionately affects a protected group. It focuses on the effects of policies rather than intent. Both are key concepts in understanding how discrimination manifests in the workplace.
Disparate treatment overview
Disparate treatment is a form of employment discrimination that occurs when an employer intentionally treats an employee differently based on a protected characteristic (race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability)
Disparate treatment claims require proof that the employer acted with discriminatory intent or motive
Disparate treatment can occur in various employment decisions, including hiring, promotion, compensation, discipline, and termination
Intentional discrimination
Top images from around the web for Intentional discrimination
The Civil Rights Movement Continues | US History II (American Yawp) View original
Is this image relevant?
California Discrimination Employment Law Information View original
Is this image relevant?
Bias and Protections in Hiring – General Psychology View original
Is this image relevant?
The Civil Rights Movement Continues | US History II (American Yawp) View original
Is this image relevant?
California Discrimination Employment Law Information View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Intentional discrimination
The Civil Rights Movement Continues | US History II (American Yawp) View original
Is this image relevant?
California Discrimination Employment Law Information View original
Is this image relevant?
Bias and Protections in Hiring – General Psychology View original
Is this image relevant?
The Civil Rights Movement Continues | US History II (American Yawp) View original
Is this image relevant?
California Discrimination Employment Law Information View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Intentional discrimination is the key element of disparate treatment claims
Employers engage in intentional discrimination when they make employment decisions based on an individual's protected characteristic
Examples of intentional discrimination include refusing to hire someone due to their race or firing an employee because of their age
Proving disparate treatment
Proving disparate treatment requires evidence that the employer's actions were motivated by discriminatory intent
Plaintiffs can use direct evidence, such as discriminatory statements or policies, to prove disparate treatment
Circumstantial evidence, such as differential treatment of similarly situated employees, can also be used to infer discriminatory intent
Burden of proof
In disparate treatment cases, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a of discrimination
Once the prima facie case is established, the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action
If the employer provides a legitimate reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the employer's reason is a pretext for discrimination
Role of comparators
Comparators are similarly situated employees who are treated differently than the plaintiff
Plaintiffs often use comparators to demonstrate that they were treated less favorably than employees outside their protected class
Comparators should be similarly situated in terms of job duties, qualifications, and disciplinary history to be considered valid
Disparate impact overview
Disparate impact is a theory of employment discrimination that focuses on the effects of an employer's policies or practices, rather than the intent behind them
Disparate impact occurs when a facially neutral policy or practice has a disproportionately negative impact on a protected group
Disparate impact claims do not require proof of discriminatory intent, making them distinct from disparate treatment claims
Unintentional discrimination
Unintentional discrimination is the basis for disparate impact claims
Employers may unintentionally discriminate when they implement policies or practices that appear neutral but have a disproportionate impact on a protected group
Examples of unintentional discrimination include height and weight requirements that disproportionately exclude women or educational requirements that disproportionately impact certain racial groups
Facially neutral policies
Facially neutral policies are employment practices that do not explicitly discriminate based on a protected characteristic
These policies may include selection criteria, testing procedures, or job requirements that apply to all employees or applicants
Despite their neutral appearance, facially neutral policies can still result in disparate impact if they disproportionately affect a protected group
Disproportionate effect
Disproportionate effect is the key element of disparate impact claims
A policy or practice has a disproportionate effect when it adversely affects a protected group at a significantly higher rate than other groups
Statistical evidence is often used to demonstrate the disproportionate effect of a policy or practice on a protected group
Business necessity defense
Employers can defend against disparate impact claims by demonstrating that the challenged policy or practice is job-related and consistent with
The business necessity defense requires employers to show that the policy or practice is necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business
If an employer successfully establishes a business necessity defense, the plaintiff must then demonstrate that there is a less discriminatory alternative that would serve the employer's legitimate needs
Disparate treatment vs disparate impact
Disparate treatment and disparate impact are two distinct theories of employment discrimination recognized under federal law
Understanding the differences between these theories is crucial for employers seeking to comply with anti-discrimination laws and for employees seeking to protect their rights
Intent requirement
Disparate treatment requires proof of discriminatory intent, while disparate impact does not
In disparate treatment cases, plaintiffs must show that the employer acted with a discriminatory motive or purpose
Disparate impact claims focus on the discriminatory effects of a policy or practice, regardless of the employer's intent
Proving discrimination
Proving disparate treatment typically involves direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, such as discriminatory statements or differential treatment of similarly situated employees
Proving disparate impact relies on statistical evidence demonstrating the disproportionate effect of a policy or practice on a protected group
Disparate impact claims often require more complex statistical analysis and expert testimony than disparate treatment claims
Employer defenses
Employers have different defenses available in disparate treatment and disparate impact cases
In disparate treatment cases, employers can defend by providing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action and showing that the reason is not a pretext for discrimination
In disparate impact cases, employers can defend by demonstrating that the challenged policy or practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity
Remedies for violations
Remedies for disparate treatment and disparate impact violations may include back pay, front pay, , and
In disparate treatment cases, plaintiffs may also be entitled to reinstatement or other equitable relief
In disparate impact cases, courts may order employers to eliminate the discriminatory policy or practice and adopt less discriminatory alternatives
Disparate impact claims
Disparate impact claims are a powerful tool for addressing unintentional discrimination in the workplace
To succeed in a disparate impact claim, plaintiffs must establish a prima facie case and demonstrate that the challenged policy or practice has a disproportionate impact on a protected group
Prima facie case
To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, plaintiffs must identify a specific employment practice that causes a disproportionate impact on a protected group
Plaintiffs must also demonstrate that the challenged practice is not job-related or consistent with business necessity
The burden then shifts to the employer to prove that the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity
Statistical evidence
Statistical evidence is crucial in disparate impact cases to demonstrate the disproportionate effect of a policy or practice on a protected group
Plaintiffs may use statistical comparisons between the protected group and other groups to show the adverse impact
Courts often require statistically significant disparities to support a finding of disparate impact
Job-related and consistent with business necessity
Employers can defend against disparate impact claims by showing that the challenged practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity
To establish this defense, employers must demonstrate that the practice is necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business
Employers must also show that the practice accurately measures or predicts job performance
Alternative employment practices
If an employer successfully establishes a business necessity defense, the plaintiff can still prevail by demonstrating that there is a less discriminatory alternative that would serve the employer's legitimate needs
Alternative employment practices may include different selection criteria, modified testing procedures, or revised job requirements
Plaintiffs must show that the alternative practice would be equally effective in meeting the employer's business needs while reducing the discriminatory impact
Disparate treatment claims
Disparate treatment claims are the most common form of employment discrimination litigation
To succeed in a disparate treatment claim, plaintiffs must prove that the employer acted with discriminatory intent or motive
Direct evidence
Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves discriminatory intent without the need for inference or presumption
Examples of direct evidence include discriminatory statements, policies, or admissions by the employer
Direct evidence is often difficult to obtain, as employers rarely make overtly discriminatory statements or maintain explicitly discriminatory policies
Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that allows a factfinder to infer discriminatory intent based on the surrounding circumstances
Examples of circumstantial evidence include differential treatment of similarly situated employees, statistical disparities, and deviations from standard procedures
Circumstantial evidence is more common than direct evidence in disparate treatment cases
McDonnell Douglas framework
The McDonnell Douglas framework is a analysis used in disparate treatment cases based on circumstantial evidence
Under this framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination
The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action
If the employer provides a legitimate reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the employer's reason is a pretext for discrimination
Pretext for discrimination
Pretext is a false or misleading reason given by an employer to cover up discriminatory intent
Plaintiffs can prove pretext by showing that the employer's stated reason is not credible, consistent, or sufficient to explain the adverse employment action
Evidence of pretext may include inconsistencies in the employer's explanation, deviations from standard procedures, or more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected class
Defenses to discrimination claims
Employers have several defenses available in response to discrimination claims under federal law
These defenses can help employers justify employment practices that would otherwise be considered discriminatory
Bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)
The BFOQ defense allows employers to discriminate based on certain protected characteristics if the characteristic is reasonably necessary for the normal operation of the business
The BFOQ defense is narrow and applies only to discrimination based on sex, religion, or national origin
Examples of BFOQs include hiring only female guards for women's prisons or requiring that actors in a play be of a specific race or ethnicity
Seniority systems
Employers can defend against discrimination claims by showing that the challenged practice is based on a bona fide seniority system
Seniority systems must be based on length of service and applied consistently to all employees
Seniority systems can have a disparate impact on protected groups, but they are generally lawful if they are not designed or used to discriminate
Affirmative action plans
Affirmative action plans are programs designed to increase the representation of underrepresented groups in the workforce
Employers can use affirmative action plans as a defense to reverse discrimination claims brought by members of the majority group
Affirmative action plans must be narrowly tailored to address specific disparities and must not unnecessarily trammel the rights of the majority group
Retaliation and interference
Employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who engage in protected activities, such as filing discrimination complaints or participating in investigations
Employers are also prohibited from interfering with an employee's exercise of rights under anti-discrimination laws
Employers can defend against retaliation and interference claims by showing that the adverse action was based on a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason
Remedies for discrimination
Employees who experience discrimination may be entitled to various remedies under federal law
The availability and amount of remedies depend on the specific anti-discrimination statute and the facts of the case
Back pay and front pay
Back pay is a remedy that compensates employees for lost wages and benefits resulting from discriminatory actions
Front pay is a remedy that compensates employees for future lost wages and benefits when reinstatement is not feasible
Back pay and front pay are available under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA
Compensatory and punitive damages
Compensatory damages are a remedy that compensates employees for emotional distress, pain and suffering, and other non-economic losses resulting from discrimination
Punitive damages are a remedy that punishes employers for malicious or reckless discrimination and deters future misconduct
Compensatory and punitive damages are available under Title VII and the ADA, but not under the ADEA
Injunctive relief
Injunctive relief is a remedy that orders employers to take specific actions or refrain from certain conduct
Examples of injunctive relief include ordering an employer to reinstate a terminated employee, provide training on anti-discrimination policies, or modify discriminatory practices
Injunctive relief is available under all federal anti-discrimination statutes
Attorneys' fees and costs
Prevailing plaintiffs in discrimination cases may be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs from the employer
The availability of attorneys' fees encourages private enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and helps level the playing field between employees and employers
Attorneys' fees are available under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA
Key Terms to Review (18)
Americans with Disabilities Act: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a landmark piece of legislation enacted in 1990 that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in various aspects of public life, including employment, transportation, public accommodations, and telecommunications. This law ensures that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, impacting how employers must handle job applicants and employees with disabilities.
Bona fide occupational qualification: A bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) refers to a legitimate reason an employer can use to hire or promote a specific individual based on characteristics typically associated with a protected class. This concept is crucial in ensuring that not all discrimination is illegal, as some roles may require certain attributes to perform essential job functions effectively. Understanding BFOQs helps clarify the distinction between permissible employment practices and discriminatory ones, especially in discussions of fair treatment and workplace harassment.
Burden-shifting: Burden-shifting refers to the legal process where the responsibility for proving or disproving a claim is transferred from one party to another during a court case. This concept is essential in employment discrimination cases, particularly in understanding how evidence is presented and evaluated in claims of disparate treatment or disparate impact. The process ensures that once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to provide legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions.
Business necessity: Business necessity is a legal standard used in employment law that allows employers to justify certain employment practices or policies that may appear to discriminate against a protected class. This concept helps employers demonstrate that a specific practice is essential for the operation of the business and serves a legitimate business purpose, effectively balancing the need for fair treatment with the realities of running an organization. In many cases, proving business necessity can mitigate claims of discrimination under various employment laws.
Compensatory Damages: Compensatory damages are a form of monetary compensation awarded to a plaintiff to cover the loss or injury they have suffered due to another party's actions or negligence. These damages are designed to restore the injured party to the position they would have been in had the harm not occurred, making them a key aspect of legal remedies in various employment-related disputes.
Disparate impact: Disparate impact refers to a legal theory in employment law where a seemingly neutral policy or practice disproportionately affects a protected group, even if there is no intent to discriminate. This concept highlights that the effects of employment practices can be discriminatory, regardless of the employer's intent, and plays a significant role in evaluating the fairness of hiring, promotion, and workplace policies.
Disparate Treatment: Disparate treatment refers to a form of employment discrimination that occurs when an individual is treated differently because of their protected characteristics, such as race, gender, age, or disability. This concept is critical in understanding various employment laws that aim to prevent unfair treatment based on these characteristics, emphasizing the need for equal opportunity and fairness in the workplace.
Four-fifths rule: The four-fifths rule is a guideline used in employment law to determine whether a hiring practice may be discriminatory. It states that if the selection rate for a protected group is less than 80% of the selection rate for the highest scoring group, this may indicate a disparate impact against the protected group. This rule helps employers assess if their hiring processes are fair and equitable.
Gender discrimination: Gender discrimination refers to the unequal treatment or consideration of individuals based on their gender, which often results in disadvantages for one gender over another, typically affecting women in the workplace. This form of discrimination can manifest in various ways, including hiring practices, pay disparities, promotions, and workplace policies that favor one gender over another. Understanding how gender discrimination relates to concepts like disparate treatment and disparate impact is crucial for recognizing and addressing inequalities in employment settings.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.: Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1971 that addressed employment discrimination and the concept of disparate impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case established that employment practices that disproportionately affect minority groups, even if not intended to discriminate, could be deemed discriminatory if they are not related to job performance. This ruling emphasized the importance of examining the consequences of employment practices, influencing future discrimination lawsuits and enforcement by administrative agencies.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case from 1973 that established a legal framework for proving discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case introduced the burden-shifting analysis used in disparate treatment claims, which allows a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and shifts the burden to the employer to provide legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions. This decision is pivotal in understanding both disparate treatment and the dynamics of wrongful termination and employment discrimination lawsuits.
McDonnell Douglas Test: The McDonnell Douglas Test is a legal framework used to analyze claims of employment discrimination, particularly in cases of disparate treatment. This test establishes a burden-shifting analysis where the employee must first demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination, after which the employer must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. The employee can then rebut the employer's explanation by showing it is pretextual, reinforcing the critical role this test plays in adjudicating claims related to unfair treatment in the workplace.
Prima facie case: A prima facie case refers to a situation in which a party presents enough evidence to support their claim, allowing the case to proceed to trial unless the opposing party can rebut the evidence. This concept is crucial in employment law, particularly in discrimination cases where a plaintiff must show sufficient evidence of discriminatory practices before the burden shifts to the employer. Establishing a prima facie case is often the first step in legal disputes, as it sets the stage for further investigation and potential resolution.
Punitive Damages: Punitive damages are a type of compensation awarded in a lawsuit that go beyond simple reimbursement for losses, aiming to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct in the future. These damages are often considered in cases where the defendant's behavior was especially egregious or reckless, making them relevant in various legal contexts, such as breaches of contract, exceptions to employment at-will, discrimination claims, and wrongful termination cases.
Race Discrimination: Race discrimination refers to the unfair treatment of individuals based on their race or ethnicity, affecting various aspects of life, including employment, education, and housing. It manifests in both overt actions and systemic practices that disadvantage certain racial groups. This term is critical in understanding legal frameworks that protect against unjust treatment and the methods through which discrimination can occur, particularly through disparate treatment or disparate impact approaches.
Statistical disparity: Statistical disparity refers to the significant difference in outcomes or representation between different groups in a population, often used to analyze inequalities in hiring, promotions, and other employment practices. This term is crucial in understanding how certain groups may be adversely affected by policies or practices that lead to unequal results, highlighting potential issues of discrimination and bias. Statistical disparity is essential when examining disparate treatment and disparate impact, as it provides a basis for identifying whether any observed differences are substantial enough to warrant further investigation or legal scrutiny.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark piece of legislation that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This law plays a crucial role in shaping workplace fairness and addressing issues such as unequal treatment and a hostile environment, impacting various aspects of employment law and protections against discriminatory practices.
Undue Hardship: Undue hardship refers to a significant difficulty or expense that an employer would incur when accommodating an employee's needs, particularly in the context of disability or religious beliefs. This concept is crucial for understanding how far an employer is expected to go to provide reasonable accommodations without suffering a disproportionate burden. The balance between providing accommodations and the financial or operational strain on the employer is at the heart of this term.