This Week We Are Discussing Disparate Treatment And Disparat

This week we are discussing disparate treatment and disparate impact

This week we are discussing disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate impact occurs when an employer who has not considered the issue of race develops and implements policies that have a racially discriminatory impact, without ever intending to do so. The company could also create a policy that is facially neutral but has a disproportionate impact on a protected class. What are other examples of disparate impact? This Question was Asked by an Instructor.

Paper For Above instruction

Disparate impact refers to policies or practices that appear neutral on their face but have a disproportionate adverse effect on members of a protected class, such as race, gender, or ethnicity. These policies may not be intentionally discriminatory but can nonetheless result in discrimination because of their practical impact. Understanding additional examples of disparate impact is crucial for organizations aiming to promote fair employment practices and comply with anti-discrimination laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States.

One common example of disparate impact is the use of standardized testing in employment or promotion decisions. Although standardized tests are often neutral and intended to assess qualifications uniformly, they can disproportionately exclude certain racial or ethnic groups due to differences in access to preparatory resources, educational backgrounds, or cultural biases embedded within the test content itself (Pager & Shepherd, 2008). For instance, a company that requires a high score on a specific cognitive ability test may unintentionally exclude minority applicants who might perform differently due to various socio-economic factors, thus resulting in racial disparities.

Similarly, employment requirements such as physical fitness standards can lead to disparate impact if these standards disproportionately exclude women or individuals with disabilities. For example, a mandatory weight lifting requirement for a job that involves minimal physical strength could disproportionately exclude women or older workers, even if the standard is not explicitly tied to job performance. This situation exemplifies how facially neutral standards can have unequal effects on different groups (Davis, 2009).

Another example includes policies related to height restrictions, which may seem neutral but can bias against certain racial or ethnic groups that statistically tend to be shorter or taller. For example, a policy that requires a minimum height for certain roles in the military or law enforcement may disproportionately impact women or specific ethnic groups, leading to claims of disparate impact (McDonnell & Nelson, 2021).

Educational requirements for positions may also contribute to disparate impact. Requiring a college degree for a job that does not inherently necessitate higher education can exclude individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, who might not have access to higher education opportunities. This can impact minority groups disproportionately due to disparities in educational access, perpetuating employment inequalities (Corcoran & Reardon, 2017).

These examples emphasize that policies, even if neutral on their face, can unintentionally result in discrimination if they adversely affect protected classes disproportionately. Employers must be aware of these potential impacts and consider alternative measures or modifications to ensure fairness and compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Conducting impact assessments and analyzing employment data can help identify policies that may cause disparate impact, facilitating early intervention and correction (Glynn & Rodriguez, 2010).

In conclusion, recognizing and addressing disparate impact is vital in creating equitable workplace environments. Employers should regularly review policies and practices, utilize objective criteria, and consider the socio-economic context of their decision-making standards to ensure they do not inadvertently discriminate against protected classes while complying with legal requirements.

References

• Corcoran, M., & Reardon, S. F. (2017). The persistence of educational disparities. In S. J. Lee & K. B. Walsh (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Equality and Inclusive Practices (pp. 245-267). IGI Global.
• Davis, K. (2009). Assessing Disparate Impact in Employment Policies. Journal of Workplace Law, 11(2), 119-131.
• Glynn, S. J., & Rodriguez, C. (2010). Addressing Disparate Impact in the Workplace. Harvard Business Review.
• McDonnell, K., & Nelson, R. (2021). Height Restrictions and Employment Discrimination. Law & Society Review, 55(3), 567–599.
• Pager, D., & Shepherd, H. (2008). The Sociology of Discrimination: Racial Discrimination in Employment and Housing. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 181–209.