The Complete Guide to Human Resources and the Law

fit in to an essay print online by HR Guide, The Supreme Court first draw the different impact theory in 1971, in Griggs v. Duke motive Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971): championship VII forbids overt discrimination but excessively practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. Good intent on the part of the employer or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem workplace procedures or testing mechanisms that discriminate against those in a protected soma that are unrelated to measuring job capability. The Court rule that even where an employer is not motivated by discriminatory intent, deed VII prohibits an the employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that have an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. The Court provided examples of practices that may be issue to a disparate impact challenge include indite tests, height and weight requirements, educational requirements, and subjective procedures, such as interviews (HR Guide to the Internet: EEO: Disparate sham , 2001)

The tax write-offs on prohibiting disparate impact related activities are far reaching. Even originally the first disparate impact lawsuit, when a policy is discriminat

Clegg, R. (2002, Winter). The Bad Law of "Disparate Impact" - Discrimination. Public Interest, Retrieved Mar 10, 2006, from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377 /is_2000_Wntr/ai_58672902/pg_3

The specific implication of this and similar rulings to employers is as follows: In order to refute the proof of discrimination, the employer must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions and its end making process. This requires that employers be vigilant for any action that appears discriminatory in the interview, employment, performance review and promotion process.

The specific implications of this ruling on an employer include:

It allows employers discretion selection among equally qualified applicants,

According to a case summary of Wileman v. Frank, 979 F.2d 30, 37 (4th Cir. 1992) published online on the FindLaw website, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit indicated that Title VII of the U.S. well-bred Rights Act cannot and does not demand that any employer relinquish its adept to select the most competent and most qualified applicant provided that illegal criteria do not become part of the decision making process. In other words, when two or to a greater extent applicants meet the minimum education and experience qualifications of a position, Title VII does not prevent an employer from preferring the applicant who had educational qualifications which authorize the minimum requirements of the position (Cases and Codes, 1994).

ory or applied in a discriminatory manner, it constitutes intentional discrimination, which is illegal. The disparate impact rule extends the exposition of illegal discrimination. Defendants in disparate impact suits can feat to rebut the plaintiffs' case by
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.