Disparate Impact

DISPARATE IMPACT

INTRODUCTION

“Employment for Buckhead residents is now available!” On the surface this could appear to be a harmless invitation for a certain area to capitalize on employment. Nevertheless, even the most naпve “simple-mind” would recognize that something is a little strange with this statement. For one thing, for you to live in Buckhead is synonymous with having a certain level of lifestyle and financial substance. Secondly, the racial demographics of this “ritzy” area are primarily of one particular ethnicity. So, to advertise for residents from this community, is to masquerade a request for that race. With this principle disparate impact is discovered. This discriminatory employment term attempts to expose an enemy far worse than just bigotry. It reveals a greater criminal, which goes unchallenged continuously, “silent prejudice”. For instance the “south” is known for its discriminating roots…just say CONFEDERATE. On the other hand, the land of the free is not as good as supposed. For its bigotry, lies deeply embedded and concealed. Unfortunately, it is just covered up …but “the knife is still under the coat”! Disparate impact is found when an unbiased policy masks an invisible barrier against a protected class.

To further illustrate the thesis the case Ward's Cove Packing Co., Inc. v. Antonio will be used. Within the Petitioners’ Alaskan Salmon Canneries, there are two general types of jobs; (1) Unskilled “cannery jobs” on the cannery lines, which are filled predominantly by nonwhite employees; and (2) “Noncannery jobs” the majority of which are classified as skilled positions and filled predominantly with white employees. Also noted, are noncannery jobs paying a higher salary to employees than “cannery jobs.” Nonwhite Cannery employees filed a suit in the District Court under Title VII o the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that many of the company’s hiring and promotion practices were responsible for its racial stratification and had additionally denied them employment as noncannery workers on the basis of race.

The District Court rejected the nonwhite employee’s claims, finding that the reason for the overrepresentation of nonwhites in cannery jobs was due to the fact that the cannery positions were filled under a hiring hall agreement with a predominantly nonwhite union. The court of Appeals, however, reversed the finding, advising that the nonwhite employees had made out a case of disparate impact in the hiring for both skilled and unskilled noncannery positions, advising that the company relied solely on employee statistics demonstrating a high percentage of nonwhite workers in cannery positions and a low percentage of such workers in noncannery positions. The court also concluded that once a plaintiff class, Petitioners’ Alaskan Salmon Canneries, has shown disparate impact caused by specific, employment practices, and the burden