Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Disparate Impact Realism, Amy L. Wax
Disparate Impact Realism, Amy L. Wax
All Faculty Scholarship
In Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658 (2009), the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the doctrine, first articulated by the Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), that employers can be held liable under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for neutral personnel practices with a disparate impact on minority workers. The Griggs Court further held that employers can escape liability by showing that their staffing practices are job related or consistent with business necessity.
In the interim since Griggs, social scientists have generated evidence undermining two key assumptions behind that decision and its …
From Wards Cove To Ricci: Struggling Against The Built-In Headwinds Of A Skeptical Court, Melissa Hart
From Wards Cove To Ricci: Struggling Against The Built-In Headwinds Of A Skeptical Court, Melissa Hart
Publications
When the Supreme Court in 1971 first recognized disparate impact as a legal theory under Title VII, the Court explained that the "absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability." Forty years later, it is the built-in headwinds of a Supreme Court skeptical of - perhaps even hostile to - the goals of disparate impact theory that pose the greatest challenge to continued movement toward workplace equality. The essay examines the troubled trajectory that disparate impact law has taken in the …
Ricci V. Destefano: Diluting Disparate Impact And Redefining Disparate Treatment, Ann C. Mcginley
Ricci V. Destefano: Diluting Disparate Impact And Redefining Disparate Treatment, Ann C. Mcginley
Scholarly Works
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits plaintiffs to bring discrimination cases under two different theories: disparate treatment, which requires a showing of the employer’s discriminatory intent, and disparate impact, which holds the employer liable absent intent to discriminate if it uses neutral employment policies or practices that have a disparate impact on a protected group. Ricci v. DeStefano significantly affects the interpretation of both of these theories of discrimination.
Ricci adopts a restrictive interpretation of the disparate impact theory that is inconsistent with Congressional intent and purpose, and signals that intentional discrimination is more important than …
Excluding Unemployed Workers From Job Opportunities: Why Disparate Impact Protections Still Matter, Helen Norton
Excluding Unemployed Workers From Job Opportunities: Why Disparate Impact Protections Still Matter, Helen Norton
Publications
No abstract provided.