Overview: Disparate impact discrimination occurs when neutral workplace policies and practices unintentionally cause a negative or adverse impact on individuals in a protected class. While there is not necessarily a discriminatory motive and the discrimination is not necessarily intentional, individuals in a protected class may suffer employee discrimination.
In order to defeat a claim of disparate impact discrimination, an employer needs to show that the policy, practice or business requirement in question is a business necessity and there is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for it. In response, an individual may argue that the employer should have utilized an alternative employment policy or practice that would not produce the disparate results or would not have a discriminatory effect. Disparate impact claims usually arise in the contexts of preemployment and employment tests and other selection procedures.
Trends: The EEOC has recently focused its attention on criminal background checks that have a disparate impact on a protected class such as race. In doing so, the EEOC issued enforcement guidance indicating when it is permissible to do a criminal background check under Title VII.
Pursuant to this new guidance, employers should be especially cautious in adopting any blanket policies prohibiting employment because of any criminal conviction. The EEOC advises employers to consider the actual requirements of each job and why convictions for a specific offense should prohibit employment in that particular job. Further, employers should conduct an individualized assessment for each applicant affected by a criminal background check and assess the type, severity, date, and number of prior convictions, and any extenuating circumstances such as rehabilitation efforts or post-conviction work history, to determine whether an individual with a conviction on his or her record should be hired.
Employers should also be aware that some state law such as that in New York addresses criminal background checks and their adverse impact in a similar manner.
Author: Beth P. Zoller, JD, Legal Editor
A recent federal court decision, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Freeman, Case No. RWT 09cv2573 (D. Md. Aug. 9, 2013), will likely have significant implications for retail and other employers who routinely use criminal background and credit checks to screen and evaluate job applicants prior to hiring them. The decision suggests that employers should continue to use these background checks so long as they are conducted properly and for an appropriate purpose.
In-depth review of the spectrum of District of Columbia employment law requirements HR must follow with respect to EEO discrimination.
When an employee announces her pregnancy, a prudent employer should proceed cautiously because a bumpy road lies ahead as legislators and policymakers at the state and federal level push for greater protection for pregnant employees. In fact, some states have already passed legislation that goes beyond federal requirements
Arizona employers take note - the Phoenix City Council has passed a measure prohibiting employers from discriminating against lesbian, gay and transgender individuals, as well as individuals with disabilities. The Ordinance G-5780 goes into effect on March 26, 2013. It applies to all employers within Phoenix city limits with at least one worker.
In a year in which equal pay looks to be hot issue, the Fair Pay Act (S. 168, H.R. 438) was reintroduced in Congress in both the House and the Senate by Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) respectively.
On January 28, 2013, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released fiscal year 2012 statistics on employment discrimination charges filed with the agency. Retaliation (37,836) was the most frequently filed claim, followed by race discrimination (33,512) and sex discrimination (30,356), which includes sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination. Retaliation charges remain a top concern for employers and have since 2010, accounting for 38.1% of all charges in 2012.
Employers should be aware that Virginia, North Dakota and Nebraska recently introduced legislation that would make sexual orientation a protected class.
On January 23, 2013, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the Pentagon would be lifting the longstanding ban on women serving in direct combat positions in the US military.
Congress kicked off its new session by revisiting the issue of equal pay and wage discrimination against women. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) and Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act, S. 84, which is aimed at ending wage discrimination between men and women working in the same position.
On January 24, 2013, the Rhode Island House of Representatives passed a bill (51-19) legalizing same-sex marriage and affording same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. If passed by the Senate, Rhode Island would join the rest of the New England states in permitting same-sex marriages
HR guidance on legal issues regarding disparate impact discrimination. How to avoid discrimination against protected employees and applicants.