Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Incomprehensible Discrimination, James Grimmelmann, Daniel Westreich
Incomprehensible Discrimination, James Grimmelmann, Daniel Westreich
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
The following (fictional) opinion of the (fictional) Zootopia Supreme Court of the (fictional) State of Zootopia is designed to highlight one particularly interesting issue raised by Solon Barocas and Andrew Selbst in Big Data’s Disparate Impact. Their article discusses many ways in which data-intensive algorithmic methods can go wrong when they are used to make employment and other sensitive decisions. Our vignette deals with one in particular: the use of algorithmically derived models that are both predictive of a legitimate goal and have a disparate impact on some individuals. Like Barocas and Selbst, we think it raises fundamental questions about …
Data-Driven Discrimination At Work, Pauline Kim
Data-Driven Discrimination At Work, Pauline Kim
Scholarship@WashULaw
A data revolution is transforming the workplace. Employers are increasingly relying on algorithms to decide who gets interviewed, hired, or promoted. Although data algorithms can help to avoid biased human decision-making, they also risk introducing new sources of bias. Algorithms built on inaccurate, biased, or unrepresentative data can produce outcomes biased along lines of race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Data mining techniques may cause employment decisions to be based on correlations rather than causal relationships; they may obscure the basis on which employment decisions are made; and they may further exacerbate inequality because error detection is limited and feedback …
The Shifting Sands Of Employment Discrimination: From Unjustified Impact To Disparate Treatment In Pregnancy And Pay, Deborah L. Brake
The Shifting Sands Of Employment Discrimination: From Unjustified Impact To Disparate Treatment In Pregnancy And Pay, Deborah L. Brake
Articles
In 2015, the Supreme Court decided its first major pregnancy discrimination case in nearly a quarter century. The Court’s decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., made a startling move: despite over four decades of Supreme Court case law roping off disparate treatment and disparate impact into discrete and separate categories, the Court crafted a pregnancy discrimination claim that permits an unjustified impact on pregnant workers to support the inference of discriminatory intent necessary to prevail on a disparate treatment claim. The decision cuts against the grain of established employment discrimination law by blurring the impact/treatment boundary and …