The component is not available at this moment. Please contact the site administrator.
An employment practice that appears to be neutral but, in practice, discriminates against protected classes creates a disparate impact, which violates anti-discrimination laws.1 A common example is a weight and height requirement that adversely impacts women but is not actually required for the job.
In disparate impact cases, an employer’s motivation to establish the particular employment practice is irrelevant. If an employee can show that an apparently neutral policy creates a harsher impact on a protected class, that policy is illegal unless the employer can show that the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity.2 However, a plaintiff can prevail by demonstrating that another business practice exists that would produce a less discriminatory effect and that the employer refused to adopt that practice.3
1. Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
2. 1991 Civil Rights Act sec. 105
3. 1991 Civil Rights Act sec. 105