The claim requires discriminatory intent, proven directly or circumstantially through the McDonnell Douglas framework. Direct evidence permits a mixed-motive analysis under Title VII.
It contrasts with disparate impact, which requires no intent.
Alternative Names:
Intentional Discrimination|Treatment Discrimination
Why it Matters?
Circumstantial proof through comparators is the standard route, which makes identifying whether the alleged comparator was actually similarly situated the central defense inquiry. Differences in supervisor, job function, disciplinary history, or the severity of the underlying conduct defeat the comparison. Direct evidence is rare and usually consists of statements by decisionmakers, which is why documented decision rationale matters more than avoiding any single remark.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What defeats comparator evidence?
How common is direct evidence?
