Disparate Impact V. Disparate Treatment

Disparate Impact v. Disparate Treatment

When an employee (or employees) alleges discrimination, s/he may bring suit under Title VII claiming one of two theories; 1) disparate impact or, 2) disparate treatment. According to our text, the suit “must fit into one theory or the other to be recognized under Title VII.” In a disparate impact claim, the claimant is not required to prove that the discrimination was intentional, instead, they need to prove that the employer utilizes employment practices that may appear neutral in their treatment of different groups, but in fact do indeed discriminate against one group and not another. In addition, these practices cannot be justified by business necessity. In a disparate treatment claim, the worker seeks to prove that the employer' has a discriminatory motive.

I. Disparate Impact

On February 3, 2005, a federal judge ordered the Dial Corporation to pay over $3 million to resolve a sex discrimination suit brought by the EEOC against The Dial Corporations Armour Star Meat Packing plant in Fort Madison, Iowa. The lawsuit claimed that Dial’s use of a strength test, which required the repeated lifting of 35 pounds to a height of 65 inches, discriminated against women. The case was based on a charge of discrimination filed by Paula Liles in 2000. Liles alleged that she was told that she had failed the test because, at 5'2", she was too short. The rational behind the case was that since only approximately 40% of female applicants passed the test, and virtually all male applicants passed the test, it was a discriminatory practice, and had a disparate impact on women. The ruling stated that the test has a disparate impact against women, and is not justified by Dial’s business necessity and is therefore illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior to the addition of the strength test in January 2000, women had successfully performed the jobs in the sausage-making department. In his ruling Judge Longstaff stated that test was illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it had a “disparate impact against female applicants and was not.” (http://eeoc.gov) According to the EEOC website, "Disparate impact cases are somewhat unusual, but they are an important tool when, as here, an apparently neutral screening test excludes large numbers of women, or any other protected group, who are able to perform the job.” (eeoc.gov). Judge Longstaff's opinion affirms the right of women to be judged on their “qualifications for the actual requirements of a job." (eeoc.gov).

II. Disparate Treatment

A lawsuit was brought against Watlow Batavia, Inc., a subsidiary of Watlow Electric Manufacturing Co. of St. Louis, for discriminating against Hispanic workers on the basis of their national origin. The suit, brought forth under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, asserted that employees were discriminated against, unfairly disciplined, and terminated for speaking Spanish to co-workers and friends. One employer in particular was terminated for greeting a co-worker in Spanish. Instead of saying “good morning,” she said “buenos