Title VII's tangled tale: the erosion and confusion of disparate impact and the business necessity defense
Article Abstract:
The concept of disparate impact in employment discrimination cases has been progressively stripped of its effectiveness, as seen in cases involving convicted criminals. As proposed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment practices had to be tied to job performance measures to escape being ruled discriminatory. The US Supreme Court's decision in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio weakened this to a business necessity standard not linked to job performance and Congress' attempt to strengthen it under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 were unsuccessful.
Publication Name: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1067-7666
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Disparate impact discrimination: American oddity or internationally accepted concept?
Article Abstract:
The landmark 1971 US Supreme Court decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. established that employment practices appearing neutral on their face can have an unjustifiably exclusionary effect on protected groups. Other Western legal systems have adopted this disparate impact discrimination doctrine in their antidiscrimination laws and rulings, yet the concept remains controversial among legal scholars in the US, and American courts have only applied the doctrine in narrow bounds.
Publication Name: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1067-7666
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The reasonable accommodation difference: the effect of applying the burden shifting frameworks developed under Title VII in disparate treatment cases to claims brought under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Article Abstract:
Employment discrimination as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act is sometimes treated the same as discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court has varied its opinions in this issue on a case-by-case basis. When the plaintiff maintains the employer did not make reasonable attempts to accommodate the employee's disability, different criteria than those used under Title VII are necessary and the burden of proof should rest with the employer.
Publication Name: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1067-7666
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Matsushita and beyond: the role of state courts in class actions involving exclusive federal claims. Guidance from the Third Circuit's recent approval of the use of settlement classes: In re General Motors Corp. Pick-up Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995)
- Abstracts: Are drivers' behavioral changes negating the efficacy of mandated safety regulations. Are drivers of air-bag-equipped cars more aggressive? A test of the offsetting behavior hypothesis
- Abstracts: Proposed changes to New South Wales and Tasmanian contaminated site regimes. Contaminated sites management in Western Australia - recent developments
- Abstracts: Unique deal struck to find water polluter(s): two oil giants dodge litigation under city pact that may become model
- Abstracts: How reputations rise and fall; the most powerful lawyers haven't left the law behind. Judges slash worker awards: NLJ study: big damages in job lawsuits are most likely to get cut, reversed