Law Commons^™

An Industry Missing Minorities: The Disparate Impact Of The Securities And Exchange Commission's Fingerprinting Rule, Kelly Noonan

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") recently asserted that the use of criminal background checks as an employment screening tool may have a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC and some private claimants have even filed lawsuits against employers claiming disparate impact violations based on statistics that show African Americans and Hispanics are considerably more likely to have criminal records than other racial groups. Yet, certain federal regulatory agencies require participants in their industries to subject employees to criminal background checks as a condition of …

Disparate Impact Is Not Unconstitutional, Michael Evan Gold

Michael Evan Gold

[Excerpt] In Ricci v. DeStefano, the "New Haven Firefighters" case, whitefirefighters and one Hispanic firefighter sued the city of New Haven, Connecticut and city officials under Title VII. The plaintiffs claimed the city had committed intentional discrimination or disparate treatment against them when the city disregarded the results of promotion examinations that had an adverse effect on black and Hispanic applicants. The Supreme Court sustained the claim. In his concurring opinion, Justice Scalia invited attorneys in subsequent cases to consider arguing that the disparate impact theory of employment discrimination is unconstitutional. He reasoned as follows: • The Constitution prohibits the …

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 …

Negative Credentials: Fair And Effective Consideration Of Criminal Records, Stacy A. Hickox, Mark Roehling

Stacy A. Hickox

The incarceration rate for groups including applicants who are protected against discrimination has had a significant effect on their potential for employment. The potential for adverse impact and disparate treatment claims by ex-offenders who are rejected under these policies will be discussed. We will also analyze the results of a survey of employers in Michigan regarding what information about ex-offender applicants are considered in making hiring decisions. These results have implications for other employers who should be establishing a business necessity or legitimate reason for the rejection of ex-offenders, and for courts who are reviewing those practices.

The Telltale Sign Of Discrimination: Probabilities, Information Asymmetries, And The Systemic Disparate Treatment Theory , Jason R. Bent

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The systemic disparate treatment theory of employment discrimination is in disarray. Originally formulated in United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the systemic disparate treatment theory provides plaintiffs with a method for creating an inference of unlawful discriminatory intent if plaintiffs can first present sufficient statistical evidence establishing that the employer was engaged in a "pattern or practice" of discrimination. While the Court and scholars have recently given substantial attention to the disparate impact theory, they have not adequately analyzed the contours of the systemic disparate treatment theory. For example, there are currently disputes about whether the systemic disparate treatment …

Fairness In Disparity: Challenging The Application Of Disparate Impact Theory In Fair Housing Claims Against Insurers, Matthew Jordan Cochran

Matthew Jordan Cochran

This article responds to courts and commentators that have expressed willingness to apply the familiar "disparate impact" analysis--which is a creation of Title VII (employment discrimination) jurisprudence--in suits against homeowners' insurers. Specifically, these insurers' credit-based pricing mechanisms systems are attacked under the Fair Housing Act as having a discriminatory effect on members of protected classes with poor credit. Unfortunately, there are a number of legal, conceptual, and practical arguments against application of this Title VII standard in such cases. Yet courts endorsing this standard do not appear to have given due consideration to the possibility that some disparities simply might …

Removing Categorical Constraints On Equal Employment Opportunities And Anti-Discrimination Protections, Anastasia Niedrich

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

It has been the "historical tendency of anti-discrimination law to use categories to define protected classes of people." This Article challenges the categorical approach and seeks to change that limited framework. This Article focuses on the flaws with Title VII's categorical approach and discusses why there is a desperate need for change to combat the different types and targets of workplace discrimination today, focusing on the transgender community as one example. After discussing the current framework and operation of Title VII, this Article analyzes the insurmountable flaws inherent in the categorical approach to anti-discrimination law, and specifically considers Title VII's …

From Wards Cove To Ricci: Struggling Against The “Built In Headwinds” Of A Skeptical Court, Melissa R. Hart

Melissa R Hart

No abstract provided.

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

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 …

Is Integration A Discriminatory Purpose?, Michelle Adams

Articles

Is integration a form of discrimination? Remarkably, recent Supreme Court doctrine suggests that the answer to this question may well be yes. In Ricci v. DeStefano, the Court characterizes - for the very first time - government action taken to avoid disparate-impact liability and to integrate the workplace as "race-based," and then invalidates that action under a heightened level of judicial review. Consequently, Ricci suggests that the Court is open to the "equivalence doctrine," which posits that laws intended to racially integrate are morally and constitutionally equivalent to laws intended to racially separate. Under the equivalence doctrine, integration is simply …

Excluding Unemployed Workers From Job Opportunities: Why Disparate Impact Protections Still Matter, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.