Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Disparate Treatment vs Disparate Impact

601). The Court noted that the union of evidence Peterson was required to produce was "very little," just something much than "purely conclusory allegations of alleged discrimination, with no concrete, relevant particulars" (Peterson, 2004, p. 601).

The Court indeed applied the McDonnell-Douglas approach to Peterson's claim, which approach was settleed in the exemplar of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and required Peterson to establish that he was a member of a protected class, he was qualified for his position, he experienced an uncomely employment action, and similarly situated employees outside his protected class were treated more favorably. However, the Court found that Peterson could not offer up any evidence that his termination was the result of disparate sermon on account of religion. Rather, the Court found the evidence pointed to the likelihood that Peterson was terminated because he was insubordinate and he violated HP's harassment policy (Peterson, 2004, p. 601).

disparate treatment analyses, therefore, req


uire the plaintiff to establish that the employer's actions were intended to break against the plaintiff by treating the plaintiff differently from other employees. As legal disciple Robert Kearney notes, disparate treatment cases often fail because the plaintiff cannot establish that the employer's motivation was discriminatory (2004, p. 87).
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
Nonetheless, employers must be aware of these types of cases when their policies specifically target a particular groups or class of people, much(prenominal) as a racial, cultural or religious group. Disparate pretend cases, however, do not require a determination of intentional discrimination. Rather, such cases find that employer policies that are not of necessity intended to discriminate can sometime unintentionally discriminate in their impact on certain protected classes of employees. As Kearney notes, disparate impact cases require the plaintiff to prove an impact between, not within, protected categories, such as an impact on one gender versus another(prenominal), or one race versus another (2004, p. 87). Employers must be aware of these types of cases when their policies, though seemingly facially-neutral, could withal have a discrimina
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.