Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons^™

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 …

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 …