Also known as: individual disparate treatment · disparate treatment theory · individual disparate treatment claim · disparate treatment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A theory of liability under Title VII that requires proof an employer intentionally discriminated against a particular employee because of a protected characteristic. The plaintiff must establish that the protected trait was a motivating factor in the adverse employment decision through direct or circumstantial evidence.
Insight Consulting, a firm operating in multiple states, challenged a federal statute that imposed extra compliance burdens only on employers in states flagged by decades-old data. The court examined whether the selective application lacked current justification tied to present conditions. The claim failed because the formula did not reflect ongoing violations warranting disparate regulatory treatment.
Israel Irving was terminated shortly after his supervisor learned he was gay. He presented evidence that similarly situated straight employees received warnings rather than discharge for comparable conduct. The court applied the but-for causation standard to determine whether sexual orientation motivated the decision.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Idris Ives and other firefighters who passed a promotional exam sued after the city discarded the results to avoid a racial imbalance. They showed the city acted because of the racial composition of the successful candidates rather than any flaw in the test itself. The court required evidence that race was the reason for the adverse action.
Ira Irving, an applicant denied admission, alleged that university officials evaluated his file differently because of his race. He introduced internal documents showing that race was considered as a plus factor only for certain applicants. The court assessed whether the individualized consideration satisfied strict scrutiny requirements.
Idina Iverson, a store manager, alleged that her pay and promotion opportunities were lower than those of male managers because of sex. She offered statistical evidence of a company-wide pattern of decisions by individual supervisors. The court evaluated whether common proof could establish intentional discrimination across thousands of stores.
Iain Irons reported repeated unwelcome advances by his shift supervisor and was later demoted. He introduced evidence that the supervisor had authority to recommend tangible employment actions. The court determined whether the employer could be held liable for the supervisor's conduct under agency principles.
A plaintiff must show that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in an adverse employment decision. Direct evidence or circumstantial evidence creating an inference of intentional discrimination satisfies this requirement.
Supporting sources
Individual disparate treatment requires proof of intentional discrimination against a specific person. Disparate impact challenges neutral practices that produce statistical disparities without regard to motive.
Supporting sources
Statistical evidence may support an inference of discrimination but typically must be paired with evidence particular to the plaintiff's situation. Courts require more than aggregate numbers to prove intent in an individual case.
Supporting sources
…District has not met its burden of proving these marginal changes . . . outweigh the cost of subjecting hundreds of students to disparate treatment based solely upon the color of their skin.” 377 F. 3d, at 984–985 (footnote omitted). Similarly, Jefferson County’s use of racial classifications has only a minimal effect on the…