Disparate Impact

Discriminatory practices can typically be grouped under one of four categories: disparate treatment, disparate impact, harassment, and retaliation. Disparate treatment refers to intentionally unfair and illegal treatment of a particular individual. But discrimination may also take a more subtle and usually unintentional form, known as disparate impact, or adverse impact.
Disparate impact is discrimination that occurs when an employment practice results in members of a protected class being treated less favorably than members of a non-protected class even though discrimination was not intentional. Disparate impact occurs when a company uses an employment practice that unintentionally discriminates against members of a protected class.
The issue in disparate impact is whether the employer can show that there is a valid, job-related reason for using the selection criterion that discriminates. In establishing selection criteria or deciding who gets raises or promotions or training, managers need to think through the possible outcomes of their choices. Unintentionality is not an acceptable defense in a disparate impact case. Most importantly, using non-job-related criteria for making such decisions ultimately affects the success of the organization as it rewards the wrong behaviors and attitudes. We will discuss these issues in more detail later, after we elaborate on how a plaintiff can make a case that disparate impact has occurred.
make a case for disparate impact, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the outcome of the employment practice was less favorable for his or her protected class than for the majority. The four-fifths rule is a guideline generally accepted by the courts and the EEOC for making such a prima facie case of disparate impact. To see how it works, let’s consider an example.
A cautionary note is in order here. As a manager, you should not try to “hire by the numbers.” A manager should not simply calculate how many minority group members need to be hired and hire that many to be in “compliance” based on the four-fifths rule.

[@thadiussean9133]

so basically the NBA and NFL are discriminating against East Asians?

[@jakefick2745]

This is a very poor analysis of duke power. Disparate impact was not the derivative of this case. The ruling stated that the requirements did not pertain to the quality of the job meaning that the promotion or transfer of employees did not require a high school education nor did aptitude take significance. Your example about workers being 6 feet tall would not violate the protected group of people as a company explicitly says they need tall employees to reach the height of the shelf. If you can prove that the requirement is arbitrary and height does not pertain to the quality of the job then you have a case.

[@michaelmiller7160]

Affirmative Action on Steroids