The claim requires identifying a specific employment practice, statistical proof of disproportionate effect, and a causal link. The employer may then show job relatedness and business necessity, after which the plaintiff may propose a less discriminatory alternative.
Intent is not required.
Alternative Names:
Adverse Impact, Disparate Impact Claim
Why it Matters?
Identifying a specific practice rather than a general policy is the requirement that defeats many claims, since a plaintiff challenging overall hiring outcomes without isolating the practice producing them fails at the threshold. Statistical significance is the second battleground, and the four-fifths rule is a guideline rather than a legal standard. Validation studies supporting job relatedness are the employer's principal defense for testing and screening practices.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What must the plaintiff identify?
What is the employer's defense?
