Also known as: disparate impact liability · disparate-impact liabilities · disparate impact · disparate-impact theory
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A theory under which a facially neutral policy or practice that produces a disproportionate adverse effect on a protected class does not, without proof of discriminatory purpose, establish liability.
Drake Logistics adopts a hiring policy that awards extra points to applicants with military service. Danielle Dixon applies for a management role but loses out to a less experienced male veteran. The policy produces markedly lower selection rates for women yet was enacted to honor service members rather than to exclude female candidates.
Decker Electronics fires Deanna Davenport after learning she is married to a woman. A male colleague in an identical same-sex marriage keeps his job. Because the termination decision turns on the employee's sex, the company would have retained a female employee married to a man.
The three cases consolidated before the Supreme Court arose when employers fired long-time employees shortly after the employees revealed their homosexual or transgender status. Gerald Bostock worked for Clayton County, Georgia, as a child welfare advocate whose leadership earned the county national awards. After a decade with the county, Bostock began participating in a gay recreational softball league. Influential community members then made disparaging comments about his sexual orientation, and he was fired for conduct unbecoming a county employee. Donald Zarda worked as a skydiving instructor at Altitude Express in New York for several seasons. After mentioning that he was gay, he was fired days later. Aimee Stephens worked at R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan, presenting as male when hired. After two years she began treatment for gender dysphoria and wrote a letter stating she planned to live and work full-time as a woman. The funeral home fired her before she left for vacation. Each employee sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. The Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII does not prohibit employers from firing employees for being gay and dismissed Bostock's suit as a matter of law. The Second Circuit allowed Zarda's claim to proceed on the ground that sexual orientation discrimination violates Title VII. The Sixth Circuit reached the same conclusion in Stephens's case regarding transgender status. Both Zarda and Stephens passed away during the proceedings, but their estates continued to press the claims. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the disagreement among the courts of appeals over the scope of Title VII's protections for homosexual and transgender persons.
View caseDillon Energy discards the results of a promotion test after minority firefighters score lower on average. White and Hispanic candidates who ranked highest sue, claiming the city cannot abandon a valid test solely because of statistical disparity without proving the test itself is invalid.
In 2003, the City of New Haven hired Industrial/Organizational Solutions, Inc. to develop and administer promotional examinations for lieutenant and captain positions in its fire department pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement that required a written component weighted at 60 percent and an oral component weighted at 40 percent. IOS performed job analyses that deliberately oversampled minority firefighters to avoid unintentional bias favoring white candidates. The examinations were administered in November and December 2003. Seventy-seven candidates completed the lieutenant examination. Forty-one candidates completed the captain examination. The results showed pass rates of 58.1 percent for white candidates, 31.6 percent for Hispanic candidates, and 31.6 percent for black candidates on the lieutenant exam. Pass rates on the captain exam were 64.3 percent for white candidates, 37.5 percent for Hispanic candidates, and 0 percent for black candidates. Under the rule of three, the top ten candidates eligible for lieutenant promotion were all white. The top nine candidates eligible for captain promotion were seven whites and two Hispanics. After the results were released, the City held five public hearings before its Civil Service Board between January and March 2004. At those hearings, IOS vice president Chad Legel described the test-development process. Testing consultant Christopher Hornick criticized the 60/40 weighting and recommended assessment centers. Retired fire captain Vincent Lewis reviewed the content. Boston College professor Janet Helms discussed possible cultural bias in the job-analysis questionnaires. City officials including corporation counsel Thomas Ude and human-resources director Tina Burgett urged non-certification on the ground that the statistical disparity would expose the City to liability. Several candidates who had passed the exams urged certification. The Board deadlocked 2-2 and declined to certify the results. Seventeen white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who had passed the examinations sued the City, Mayor John DeStefano, and other officials in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging violations of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in a per curiam opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseDoris Duffy and other female employees at Davenport Pharmaceuticals seek to certify a nationwide class alleging that subjective manager evaluations produce lower pay and fewer promotions for women. The company maintains uniform written policies but allows local discretion that generates statistical disparities across stores.
In 2001, three current or former female employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.—Betty Dukes, Christine Kwapnoski, and Edith Arana—filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California alleging that the company had discriminated against them and other women in pay and promotions. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer with approximately 3,400 stores across the country and more than one million employees, delegated pay and promotion decisions to local store managers who exercised broad discretion in a largely subjective manner. The plaintiffs claimed that this discretion was exercised disproportionately in favor of men, resulting in lower pay and fewer promotions for female employees. They sought to represent a class of approximately 1.5 million current and former female employees who had worked at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store since December 26, 1998. To support their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs presented statistical evidence from experts Dr. Richard Drogin and Dr. Marc Bendick showing pay and promotion disparities between men and women, anecdotal evidence consisting of about 120 affidavits from female employees describing discriminatory experiences at only 235 of the company's 3,400 stores, and the testimony of sociologist Dr. William Bielby who analyzed Wal-Mart’s corporate culture. Betty Dukes began working at a Pittsburg, California store in 1994 as a cashier and was later promoted to customer service manager before being demoted; she alleged retaliation and that male greeters were paid more. Christine Kwapnoski worked at Sam’s Club stores and claimed a male manager yelled at female employees and told her to “doll up.” Edith Arana worked at a Duarte, California store from 1995 to 2001. She was denied opportunities for management training despite repeated requests. The District Court certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), finding that the plaintiffs had presented significant evidence of a company-wide pattern of discrimination. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, substantially affirmed the certification order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the class certification was consistent with Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).
View caseDemetrius Douglas, a state employee, challenges a leave policy that grants more generous benefits to mothers than to fathers. The policy produces a disparate impact on male caregivers even though the state framed the rule around childbirth rather than gender.
William Hibbs worked for the Nevada Department of Human Resources Welfare Division. In April and May 1997, Hibbs sought leave under the FMLA to care for his ailing wife who was recovering from a car accident and neck surgery. The Department granted his request for the full 12 weeks of FMLA leave and authorized him to use the leave intermittently as needed between May and December 1997. Hibbs used the leave until August 5, 1997. In October 1997, the Department informed Hibbs that he had exhausted his FMLA leave, that no further leave would be granted, and that he must report to work by November 12, 1997. Hibbs failed to return to work by that date and was terminated. Hibbs sued the Nevada Department of Human Resources and two of its officers in the United States District Court seeking damages and injunctive and declaratory relief for violations of the FMLA. The District Court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that the FMLA claim was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Hibbs appealed and the United States intervened to defend the validity of the FMLA's application to the States. The Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's judgment. When it enacted the FMLA, Congress considered evidence including a 1990 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey showing that 37 percent of surveyed private-sector employees were covered by maternity leave policies while only 18 percent were covered by paternity leave policies. Congress also heard testimony that parental leave for fathers is rare and that men receive discriminatory treatment in requests for such leave. A 50-state survey demonstrated that the proportion and construction of leave policies available to public sector employees differs little from those offered private sector employees. Many States offered women extended maternity leave that far exceeded the typical period of physical disability due to pregnancy and childbirth but very few States granted men a parallel benefit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split among the Courts of Appeals on the question whether an individual may sue a State for money damages in federal court for violation of the FMLA's family-care provision.
View caseDiana Delgado, an elderly resident without a driver's license, must travel forty miles to obtain free identification before voting. The statewide rule applies to every in-person voter and generates lower turnout among certain demographic groups, yet the state defends it as a neutral measure to prevent fraud.
In 2005, the Indiana General Assembly enacted Senate Enrolled Act No. 483, referred to as the Voter ID Law or SEA 483. The statute requires citizens voting in person at primary and general elections to present a government-issued photo identification card. It does not apply to absentee ballots submitted by mail. There is an exception for persons living and voting in a state-licensed facility such as a nursing home. Voters who lack compliant photo identification may cast a provisional ballot. The ballot will be counted only if they execute an appropriate affidavit before the circuit court clerk within ten days following the election. A voter who is indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed may cast a provisional ballot that will be counted only if she executes an appropriate affidavit before the circuit court clerk within 10 days following the election. The state offers free photo identification to qualified voters able to establish their residence and identity. Promptly after the enactment of SEA 483 in 2005, the Indiana Democratic Party and the Marion County Democratic Central Committee filed suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against the state officials responsible for its enforcement. A second suit seeking the same relief was brought on behalf of two elected officials and several nonprofit organizations representing groups of elderly, disabled, poor, and minority voters. The cases were consolidated, and the State of Indiana intervened to defend the validity of the statute. After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. She found that petitioners had not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements. She rejected as utterly incredible and unreliable an expert's report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver's license or other acceptable photo identification. She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver's license or identification card. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Four judges voted to grant a petition for rehearing en banc. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNo. A plaintiff must show that the policy was adopted because of its adverse effect on a protected group rather than for a legitimate purpose. Statistical evidence of impact is relevant but insufficient without proof of discriminatory intent.
Supporting sources
Liability arises when the test produces a substantial statistical disparity and the employer cannot demonstrate that the test is job-related and consistent with business necessity. The plaintiff may still prevail by showing a less discriminatory alternative exists.
Supporting sources
Yes, when the purpose is legitimate and unrelated to disadvantaging the protected class. Courts examine whether the decision maker selected the policy because of its effect or despite it.
Supporting sources
…their argument that the University is unlikely to present evidence of past discrimination by the University itself or of the disparate impact of some current admissions criteria, and that these may be important and relevant factors in determining the legality of a race-conscious admissions policy. We must therefore conclude that…