Disparate_or_Adverse_Impact

Human Resource Management (Available Titles Coursemate)

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Disparate or Adverse Impact Initially Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade disparate treatment (intentional) of individuals because of race, color, gender, age, religion, or national origin. Civil rights law has since evolved into two types of cases of discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate (adverse) impact. The first is where the employer intentionally discriminates (disparate treatment) against a person who is a member of a protected class (race, color, gender, age, religion, etc.). Disparate impact deals with the treatment of an individual, applicant or employee. The second type of discrimination deals with groups of people.(Robinson, McClure Franklin, & Wayland, 2002, p. 80). Disparate or adverse impact tends to be more confusing because the employer UNINTENTIONALLY discriminates against members of a protected group through a specific employment practice. Disparate (Adverse) Impact refers to the results of a particular practice that adversely treat a group despite the employer's good intentions. The decision by the United States Supreme Court in the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case, established the disparate impact paradigm for proving employment discrimination. The background of the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case: While on the surface it appeared that every candidate experienced the same process and was measured against the same standards (no one being given favorable treatment over someone else), a group of African Americans employees complained that new education and testing requirements implemented by the firm had the effect of denying African Americans at a much higher rate. Duke Power had implemented a requirement that all employees promoted from the labor department must have completed a high school diploma or its equivalent and have satisfactory scores on two aptitude tests: the Wonderlich Personnel Test and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test. (Robinson, et al, 2002) "Job placement was based solely on whether an applicant passed them" (Robinson, et al, 2002, p. 80). The employees based their complaint on the fact that the census of North Carolina at the time showed that 34 percent of the white males received a high school diploma versus only 12 percent of the African American males (Robinson, et al, 2002). However, of those eligible to take the test 58 percent of the white males were successful versus only 6 percent of the African American males. (Robinson, et al, 2002). Moreover, the formalized selection process standards did not appear to have anything to do with success in the jobs applied for. Employees placed prior to the new standard who were not tested performed satisfactorily. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "The [Civil Rights] Act proscribes not only discrimination but also practices that are fair in form. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude
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 / 4

Disparate_or_Adverse_Impact - Disparate or Adverse Impact...

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