Tagged: job related

“Unlike the disparate treatment theory, the disparate impact theory combats not intentional discriminatory practices but facially neutral practices that limit or exclude, unnecessarily and disparately, opportunities or benefits for groups and individuals deemed to [be] members of protected classes even though not adopted with discriminatory intent. The clear message to defendants from the substantial body of law on the disparate impact theory was an either-or proposition: Either affirmatively prove that facially neutral employment practices are required by business necessity or adopt policies that neutralize the disparate impact. Failure to do either subjected the defendants to broad structural judicial compliance orders which, in most cases, imposed substantial costs on the defendants because among other things, most of the disparate impact cases were brought as large, broadly defined class actions. In addition, courts tended to retain[] jurisdiction over the cases for a substantial period of time to monitor the defendants’ compliance with remedial orders. The costs of monitoring the decrees, which often was done by an independent neutral, were imposed on defendants.”

Source: Robert Belton, The Role of the Private Attorney General in Achieving Compliance with Workplace Laws, 2009.