Distinguishing Disparate Treatment from Disparate Impact; Confusion on the Court
26 PagesPosted: 31 Oct 2015Last revised: 21 Nov 2015
Date Written: October 30, 2015
In two decisions in the 2014-2015 Term, Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., the Court seemed to give contradictory answers to an important unresolved conceptual definitional question: Does disparate treatment include assigning members of a protected group based on their protected status to a larger disfavored group that is defined by neutral principles and that includes others who are not members of the protected group? Or does such assignment have only a disparate impact on the protected status group?
In Young, the first of these decisions, all members of the Court, though divided on the appropriate analysis, seemed to assume that consideration of protected status in assigning an individual to a more broadly defined larger disfavored group is not overt disparate treatment. In Abercrombie, however, a conceptually identical case involving alleged religion-based rather than pregnancy-based discrimination, eight members of the Court held that consideration of a protected religious practice under a general policy that defined a larger group to be disfavored is illegal disparate treatment, absent the availability of a statutory defense.
The Court’s decision in Young was unfortunate. This is not only because the majority opinion diluted the Pregnancy Amendment Act (PDA) amendments to Title VII with a confusing opinion that provided incomplete guidance for future cases or even the Young case itself on remand. It is also because the opinion weakened the appropriate clarification that the Abercrombie decision might have given to the conceptual line between the disparate treatment and disparate impact forms of discrimination proscribed by Title VII. The essay explains why disparate treatment analysis is appropriate in cases where protected status is taken into account under a more general policy that defines a disfavored group that encompasses but is more inclusive than the protected status.
Keywords: disparate treatment, disparate impact, Title VII, pregnancy discrimination, religious discrimination, intentional discrimination, Supreme Court inconsistency
Suggested Citation:Suggested Citation
Harper, Michael, Distinguishing Disparate Treatment from Disparate Impact; Confusion on the Court (October 30, 2015). Boston University Law Review, Vol. 96, 2016, Forthcoming; Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 15-52. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2684114
Download This Paper Open PDF in Browser
Group Analysis Essay
2543 Words11 Pages
Introduction An important part of our learning and growing experience must stem from our ability to analyze and reflect upon the groups that we have been members in. This reflection can define our understanding of the weaknesses both in ourselves and in the others within our group; and it can help to shape the way that we act in future groups. Adjusting ourselves to compensate for our weaknesses, based upon an honest and thorough examination of our actions within a group setting, is one of most important thing for any person to do. It is only through this evaluation that we can improve ourselves and our interactions with others. This paper will examine a group that was required to make an important decision about adding a new member…show more content…
The discussions broke the team members into two distinct groups. The debate that was held about the two candidates revolved main around the values that each member held to be more desirable; friendliness and experience versus reliability and knowledge. The first group argued that the friendlier candidate would be a better fit for the position mainly because the members of that group tended to be more heavily involved in people oriented side of the organization, while the other group and the other candidate were more versed in the technical side of the organization. However, rather than this group meeting basing its agenda on the discussion of the values of the candidates, it was a series of comparison arguments in which each side attempted to argue why the other candidate would not do well in the open position. Both groups turned away from the civility required for such a group discussion to be rational and productive, and instead adopted a hostile approach. Group member cohesiveness was absent from the group meeting for several reasons, but the primary reasons were due to the fact that the group members did not have a common description of value or structure to the discussion. Each member viewed their own area of involvement within the organization as being more valuable than any other area, and it was this exclusion of other valuable traits that lead the group to begin to clash in such a