Disparate Impact

Disparate Impact

Pashaun

Management 434

October 25, 2005

Disparate Impact

Disparate impact occurs when an employer uses a system that is not purposefully discriminatory, but nevertheless has a negative impact on a class protected under Title VII (Bennett-Alexander, 2003). EEOC vs Dial Corp., S.D. Iowa, No. 3-02-CV-10109, 2/3/05 is a case that illustrates disparate impact and how an employer may attempt to use a screening process in order to discriminate and prevent a specific group of individuals from being employed.

In September 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Dial Corporation alleging that the strength test instituted by the company was discriminatory against women (EEOC v. Dial Corporation (Iowa)). The test required the repeated lifting of 35 pounds to a height of 65 inches. The pass rate of the strength test was disproportionate because the male applicants passed at a 97% success rate in comparison to 40% of the female applicants (Rosenblaum, 2005). According to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, there is a 20% margin allowable between the outcome of the majority (men) and minority (women) under a given screening process (Bennett-Alexander, 2003). Disparate impact has been consistently demonstrated when the rate of selection for groups protected under Title VII is less than 80% (Bennett-Alexander, 2003).

The case went to trial and a jury found that Dial’s use of this screening test was purposefully discriminatory against women. The presiding judge stated “the test was also illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it had a disparate impact against female applicants and was not justified by Dials business necessity” (EEOC) Dial was ordered to pay over $3 million to the 52 women named in the lawsuit in order to resolve the discrimination. The strength test was found to be harder than performance of the actual job, and prior to the test’s implementation, over half of the workers at Dial were women (EEOC v. Dial Corporation (Iowa)). Prior to the newly implemented test, the job performance of the women employees was successful within Dial’s sausage-making department (EEOC v. Dial Corporation (Iowa)). Dial’s defense was that the test was needed in order to reduce injuries; however, Dial failed to prove that the test was a business necessity for an entry-level position in its sausage-making department (EEOC v. Dial Corporation (Iowa)). Business necessity can be a valid defense for employers in cases where disparate impact has been charged; however, they must be able to prove that the disparate impact on the group protected by Title VII is in fact job related (Bennett-Alexander, 2003).

The outcome of this ruling is very important and holds significant implications for America’s workforce. For employers this case serves as a warning that discrimination of any type can be costly and hurt a business’ reputation. It also helps to destroy