Disparate Impact vs Disparate Treatment Case Study

Topics: Discrimination, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Supreme Court of the United States Pages: 3 (843 words) Published: April 18, 2007
Disparate Impact/Disparate Treatment Case Study
Disparate Impact and Disparate Treatment are two examples of discriminatory treatment, but one is direct and the other is indirect. "Disparate impact" is a legal theory for proving unlawful employment discrimination. Disparate impact is the idea that some employer practices, as mater of statistics, have a greater impact on one group than on another. (Runkel, n.d.)Disparate impact is a non-intentional discriminatory action. On the other hand, "Disparate Treatment" is a basic concept in employment discrimination cases. Lawyers classify employment discrimination cases as either "disparate treatment" cases or "disparate impact" cases. Example of a disparate treatment case is, an employee claiming that the employer treated her differently than other employees who were in a similar situation. Like, Jane and Paul skip work one day; the employer fires Jane but does not fire Paul. If the reason is because Jane is female, then this is disparate treatment because of sex which would violate title VII. (Runkel, n.d.) After defining the two different types of discriminatory actions we can have a better understanding of how the two affect employee's rights. In the case EEOC v. The Dial Corporation (# 3-02-CV-10109 S.D. Iowa), a discrimination charge was filed by Paula Liles, who applied for a position at Dial in February 2000. Ms. Liles and other unsuccessful female applicants testified at trial that they had performed heavy physical work, including lifting, in the past, and that they had met all the other job requirements and had been made conditional job offers prior to being rejected by Dial based on the work tolerance test. Ms. Liles completed the seven-minute test, but was graded as failing because of her height, which required her to go on her toes to complete the lifts to 65 inches. Judge Longstaff stated that, "Dial has failed to fulfill its burden to show it had a ‘compelling need' for implementation of the WTS, and...

References: Runkel, R. (n.d., n.d.). Disparate impact. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://www.lawmemo.com/101/2006/01/disparate_impac_1.html
Runkel, R. (n.d., n.d.). Disparate treatment. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://www.lawmemo.com/101/2005/12/disparate_treat_1.html
Supreme Courts of The United States (2003, December 2). Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez. Certiorari To the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2003, p.1. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-749.pdf
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2005, February 8). Pre-Employment Test By Dial Corp. Discriminates Against Women, Court Rules In EEOC Case. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2005, p.1. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from http://www.eeoc.gov/press/2-8-05.html
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Essay on Disparate Impact Disparate Treatment Case study
  • Essay on Disparate Impact vs. Disparate Treatment
  • Disparate Impact/Disparate Treatment Case Study Essay
  • Disparate Impact-Treatment Case Study Essay
  • Essay about Disparate Impact/Disparate Treatment
  • Disparate Impact Analysis Case 5 Essay
  • Disparate Treatment Essay
  • Disparate Impact Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free