Disparate_Impact_Disparate_Treatment_Case_Study

Disparate Impact/Disparate Treatment Case Study Tammy Anderson University of Phoenix Employment Law MGT434 Ms. Spencer December 11, 2005 Disparate Impact/Disparate Treatment Case Study This assignment will define two separate cases and explain the difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact. Each case will have the following information included for review: • Facts of case • Issue or question to be answered by the court • Court’s decision • Court’s rationale Case #1 Disparate Treatment PRICE WATERHOUSE v. HOPKINS, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) 490 U.S. 228 is a case about sex discrimination against a women. The woman (respondent) had been working for an accounting partnership and was recommended for partnership herself. After some time her recommendation was neither accepted nor denied by the partnership, but put on hold until the next evaluation period. The respondent sued charging that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex (gender) in its partnership decisions. The question for the court is was the decision or lack of decision considered sex discrimination against this woman when making decision for partnership. After hearing many witness accounts and reviewing the recommendations written by the partners for the women in question, the court agreed with the respondent that there had been sex discrimination against the respondent. There was additional evidence that that many of the women previously recommended for partner were referred to in sex-based terms in their recommendations from the partners at the firm. According to the transcript the idea of some of the comments made by the partners providing feedback stated that her attitude and assertiveness was not lady like. That swearing was also not acceptable for a woman wishing to become a partner. Apparently it was ok for the male partners however. Because of the above examples of the comments, it was ruled that it was sex discrimination. Case #2 Disparate Impact CONNECTICUT v. TEAL, 457 U.S. 440 (1982) is about black employees in Connecticut state agency were granted supervisor status conditionally until they passed a written test that was not job related. Only about 48% of the black candidates passed the test. If they did not pass the test they were not allowed for any further consideration for the promotion to supervisor. They filled an action alleging that their company had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by requiring, as an absolute condition for consideration for promotion, that applicants pass a written test that disproportionately excluded blacks and was not job related. Before the trial the company promoted a group to supervisor. It turned out that 23% of the black candidates were promoted and 14% of the white applicants were promoted. The petitioners challenge that the number of more favorable blacks to whites that were promoted were a direct result of the suit filed against the company. The District Court agreed with the petitioners that they did not have to prove that the test was job related. That the bottom line defense was in their favor and ruled in the petitioners favor. The case was taken to the appeals court the judgment was over turned and ruled in favor of the Respondent and referred the case back to the District for a rehearing. Although these are not clear cut cases of winners they do demonstrate the difference. As you can see disparate treatment is an individual thing and has one respondent. This person is responsible to prove that they are part of the class VII to be able to file an action in court. Disparate impact would be something that impacts and entire group of people such as race. In the case listed above, this is the problem. It is usually displayed by a testing method that is not fair to all and is the final decision for promotions. It seems as though both types are very complex and difficult to prove and they go to an appeals court a lot of the time. They can bounce back and forth and take several years to resolve. To avoid this, it is best to have a strong case when beginning the process. References Thomson Findlaw (1994-2005). Find Law for Legal Professionals. PRICE WATERHOUSE v. HOPKINS, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). http://laws.findlaw.com/us/490/228.html Thomson Findlaw (1994-2005). Find Law for Legal Professionals. CONNECTICUT v. TEAL, 457 U.S. 440 (1982). http://laws.findlaw.com/us/457/440.html