Would that mean that any form of aid or financial assistance that provided less benefit for protected classes that tended to be less impoverished would be considered to be illegal discrimination?
We are straying off topic, but business necessity is a defense to disparate impact. The textbook example is a job that requires heavy lifting. Your hiring practices for that job might involve requiring applicants to possess upper body strength, which may have a disparate impact on women. But the job really does require upper body strength, so the burden reverts back to the woman who would sue for unlawful discrimination.
Your question seems to be along the lines of, let’s say you’re out there hiring a bunch of impovershed men and giving them steady jobs. Can some disgruntled middle-class lady win a suit against you for illegal discrimination, based only on the theory of disparate impact? Probably not, although if she can prove, for example, rejection of equally qualified women (including strength), you could lose that case.
~Max
Economic status is a protected class?
Not to my knowledge, no.
~Max
Then I don’t understand what she could sue for.
Discrimination on the basis of sex.
~Max
Okay, I have no idea how that came about. You just threw that in there.
Why am I discriminating on the basis of sex, and how is this in any way related to the idea of giving extra weight to those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds?
anyway, my laundry is finally done, so I’m going to bed.
Back this up. If my only requirement for hiring you for this good paying cushy job is that you have never made more than $10,000 in a year, then would that be legal?
The rest of your scenario is irrelevant.
And now I’m really going to bed.
Acerbic brought up the theory of disparate impact, and you asked if it would be considered illegal discrimination if a form of aid or assistance provided less benefit for a protected class. I took this to mean that you were not familiar with disparate impact, so I provided a textbook example of alleged hiring discrimination on the basis of sex, along with a common defense.
~Max
(I am not a lawyer.)
If we are to assume that the consequence of this policy is that you hire, for example, less white people than black people, you could be sued by a white person for illegal discrimination on the basis of race.
Once it is proven that you actually did hire significantly more black people, due to this requirement, it becomes your responsibility to prove that your discrimination on the basis of economic advantage is actually relevant to the job and not just a fig leaf for discrimination on the basis of race.
~Max
You may be interested in reading Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) and Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009). In Griggs the Court ruled that “[i]f an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited”.
~Max
You took this to mean wrong. So you provided an example that was irrelevant to the question. Your confusion caused mine, as I was thinking that what you were saying was relevant.
And what if it is not a fig leaf for discrimination on the basis of race, but an open point of discriminating on the basis of economic status?
Let’s say that a population’s racial makeup is 60% A, 25% B, and 15% C.
The makeup of those under the poverty line are 30% A, 20% B, and 50% C.
If my employees reflect approximately the ratios of those under the poverty line, does the fact that the ratios do not reflect the population mean there is racial discrimination, or as you choose to claim, “just a fig leaf for discrimination on the basis of race”?
If what you are saying is true, then any sort of means tested support or assistance would be illegal discrimination, if it went proportionally more towards one protected class than another (which it probably does).
You for some reason keep trying to throw in that I would be discriminating based on other factors than economic status, and that is what seems to keep confusing you and making you make irrelevant analogies.
My mistake. I meant to say that the when blacks and hispanics were 15% of stuyvesant students. please replace the word NYC with stuyvesant students. Brain fart.
You are assuming that the racial groups are otherwise equally qualified for the job.
So while poverty can serve as a rough proxy for race when it comes to distribution of services, there may be enough of a gap in academic ability so that you end up with mostly people from group B and very few from group A or C.
If we are talking about employment, the burden is upon you to show that your economic discrimination is relevant to the job. If you cannot do that, for example because you discriminate for the sake of economic discrimination, then you may be found to discriminate on the basis of race by way of disparate impact.
Fortunately, this is not true because Title VII does not apply to charitable causes, statutory law, etc.
~Max
No, the job that they would have would be to make sure that my couches and chairs do not float away. So long as their bodies interact with gravity, they are equally qualified.
So, if say, you discriminated based on only hiring people with a college degree, if it can be shown that that college degree is not necessary for the job, then a disparate impact would be actionable?
If there was in fact a disparate impact on people of a protected class, then yes. ETA: The rule is generally that your ratio has to have a disparity of at least 80%. So if you hired say, 80% of applicants of race C, and only 20% or less of applicants of race A, that would be the kind of disparity we’re talking about.
~Max
I botched that explanation. The ratio between the hiring rates among applicants of race A and of race B must be at least 80%; a disparity between the two rates exceeding 20% indicates disparate impact.
So if 60 people of race A apply, and you hire 30, that is a hiring rate of 50% among applicants of race A.
If 25 people of race B apply, and you hire 20, that is a hiring rate of 80% among applicants of race B.
If 15 people of race C apply, and you hire 8, that is a hiring rate of 53% among applicants of race C.
Under these circumstances, your hiring policy has a disparate impact against people of races A and C, and favors race B. You may be sued and have to prove to the satisfaction of a court that you have a valid, job-related reason to favor applicants from race B. Does that make sense?
~Max
I don’t know what is wrong with my reading comprehension today, maybe because it is Sunday? The last explanation didn’t properly match your example. This one should be accurate to your poverty rate vs racial makeup from post #32:
If 60 people of race A apply, and you hire 18, that is a hiring rate of 30% among applicants of race A.
If 25 people of race B apply, and you hire 5, that is a hiring rate of 20% among applicants of race B.
If 15 people of race C apply, and you hire 8, that is a hiring rate of 53% among applicants of race C.
Under these circumstances, your hiring policy has a disparate impact against people of races A and B, and favors race C. The reason for this is because 20% / 53% < 30% / 53% < 80%. You may be asked to prove to the satisfaction of a court that you have a valid, job-related reason to favor applicants from race C.
~Max