121310 - 1/13/10 Intentional & unintentional o Problem:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
1/13/10 - o Problem: If there is no differential treatment, but there is nonetheless disparate impact, how should the courts determine discrimination? o Opinion of ECJ advocate General, Pojares Maduro(2008): exclusionary mechanism and inclusionary mechanism o Bilka (1986) - U.S approach o Davis(1976): “Disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it’s not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution. o Feeney(1979) “Discriminatory purpose” . . It implies that the decision maker, in this case a state legislature, selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part “because of”, not merely “in spite of”, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group” o Griggs (1971): “congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question.” - COMPARISON: How would the Bilka case be decided in the United States? Would it matter whether Mrs. Weber sued under the Constitution or under
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

121310 - 1/13/10 Intentional & unintentional o Problem:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online