Disparate Impact

Disparate Impact

Disparate impact discrimination occurs when an employer uses a system by which discrimination is not intended, but by using this system, members of a protected class are negatively affected. This could include height or weight restrictions, testing, or educational requirements that are unrelated to measuring an employees’ competence in doing a particular job. In EEOC v Dial Corp., S.D. Iowa, No. 3-02-CV-10109, 2/3/05 the federal district court ruled that Dial Corporation’s strength test that they gave prior to employment at the Armour meat packing plant had a disparate impact against women. This ruling will help companies take a look at the current tests or requirements and see if there are any alternate ways of screening applicants so the test is directly related to the job task.

Screening

A screening test is any test that evaluates applicants and can be anything from written tests, to physical fitness tests. These tests can be done legally as long as the screening requirements reflect the nature of the job. For instance, a written test may not have anything to do with a manual labor job and running a mile in 10 minutes may have nothing to do with the job that is open. In most cases, these tests help companies make sure that the prospective employee has the knowledge and ability to do the job. In this case, Dial required applicants to move rods that are weighted from one platform to slots on another platform. This test was supposed to be approximately the same as the job in question, which required lifting 35-pound rods of sausage repeatedly 65 inches off the floor. This test was implemented, according to Dial, for safety reasons to keep employees from injuring themselves. Before this test was implemented almost half of the people hired were women and the injury rates for both male and female employees were “virtually identical” (EEO: Sex Discrimination, 2005). After the test was put into place, the annual injury rate dropped more than 50% (Stanley, 2005).

Ruling of the Court

According to Chief Judge Ronald E. Longstaff of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, Dial’s “work tolerance test” (WTS) was passed by 97% of the male applicants that took the test and only 40% of the female applicants that took the test. Dial did not prove that this test was necessary to do the entry-level jobs in the sausage-making department of the plant (Pre-employment test by Dial Corp. discriminates against women, court rules in EEOC case, 2005). Dial argued that the test was job-related, reduced injuries and was necessary, not taking into consideration that women had been doing the job for years before the test was implemented without any more injuries than the men had. “The court agreed with the EEOC that the overall reduction in injuries in the plant was likely related to other safety initiatives that the company had implemented, like an "ergonomic job rotation program" for certain jobs and a back injury prevention program. The court also observed that the test itself was more difficult than the job.” (EEO: Sex Discrimination, 2005). The jury found that Dial discriminated against the women by using this test and though the test was designed to duplicate the job, Dial could not prove that this was the only way to test the applicant’s ability to do the job (Stanley, 2005).

Impact on Companies

Companies now can take the rulings of this case and apply them to their own hiring practices. Screening