Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact in Human Resource Management

This document discusses the concepts of disparate treatment and disparate impact in human resource management. It explains the legal implications of these practices and their effects on diversity and the bottom line of a company. The document also provides examples and discusses the process of filing lawsuits in cases of discrimination.

Running head: QUESTIONS 0
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGMENT
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019
STUDENT DETAILS:

QUESTIONS 1
Question 1:
The disparate treatment may lead severe problems or challenges within the corporation.
Not just this may lead to legal actions; this may also cause the company to lack diversity that
may intensely influence the bottom line. The disparate treatment is considered as the illegal
discrimination in the labor law in United States of America (Carbado, 2017). In USA, the
disparate treatment is considered as illegal unequal actions toward somebody because of the
secured characteristics in the Title VII of Civil Rights Act of USA. These differences
with disparate impact, wherever the company implements the neutral rule that handles every
body similarly in form, however has the harmful effects on certain persons of the secured
characteristics in comparison of the others. For proving the disparate treatment claims, firstly the
worker should represent the adequate evidence for permitting the jury or judge for inferring that
discrimination occurred. It is considered as the “prima facie” case for the reason that firstly it
appears at discrimination; what the evidence contains depends upon the fact. In a case when a
worker may represent the prima facie matter, then the company should describe the legal, non-
discriminatory reasons for judgments. As soon as the worker state these reasons, then he or she
should prove pretext that the stated reasons of the company are not true, the mere pretext for the
actual aim that is discrimination (Younossi, et. al, 2016).
Further, the desperate treatment may be described as the condition wherever the
employers treat some workers less constructively in the comparison of other depended on the
sex, race, national origin, color as well as belief. This type of discrimination is so general in
numerous business organizations as well as one may have the legal actions for looking for the
justice for this type of treatment. The disparate treatment as well as disparate impact is

QUESTIONS 2
considered as the discriminatory practices. Disparate impact is considered as unintentional
discrimination, where disparate treatment is on purpose. The expressions ‘adverse treatment’ as
well as the ‘adverse impact’ are utilized as the alternatives (Craig, et. al, 2019).
In addition, the disparate impact takes place while the approaches, policies, regulations or
other methods that seem to be the unbiased outcome in the disproportionate impact upon the
secured group. For an instance, checking applicants as well as utilizing outcomes from that tests
that would accidentally eradicate some minority applicants excessively is the disparate impact.
Moreover, the disparate treatment is planned service discrimination (Kahn & Martin, 2016). For
the example, examining the specific skills of just some minority applicant is the disparate
treatment. The central law restricts the work discrimination based on the race, gender,
nationality, age, same pay, sexual category, disabilities or genetic data as well as restricts the
"disparate impact" discrimination along with "disparate treatment" discrimination. In this way,
the process of filing the lawsuits in against of the discrimination in the court of law in desperate
treatment theories as well as desperate impact involves recording matters to judicial authority for
taking the legal actions in against of the committers of act. The plaintiff is required to prove to
alaw court that the form of the story is consistent as well as correct. The complainants are
required to prove that indeed the manager discriminated them. For itself, the plaintiff should
have the proper evidence in relation to the claims of discrimination. It will make able the matter
to be filed as well as anticipate the determination of this by the judges (Sanchez, 2018).
Question 2:
The adverse impact takes place while the decisions, practices, or policies have the
excessively adverse effect upon the secured group, although the adverse impact can be

QUESTIONS 3
unplanned. The EEOC guidelines as well as unvarying guideline on the worker assortment
processes describe the adverse impact as "the significantly different selection rates in
employment, advancement or other service decisions that works to the disadvantages of the
member of ethnic group or race. While the adverse impact presents, the company can be
defenseless to the discrimination’s charges. The organizations have followed the rules in which
they would normally consider the rate of selection of group that is not more than 4/5th or eighty
per cent of a rate of selection for groups with the maximum rate of selection as the significantly
varied selection rates. The 80 percent or four-fifth guidelines are not planned as the judicial
meaning however is the practical source of retaining the attention of the enforcement
corporations on serious discrepancies in employment rates, promotions along with the decision
related to selection (Nieto, 2017). The adverse impact can be determined by the following 4-step
procedure-
1. Calculate selection rate for all the groups (divide the people’s number chosen from the
group by the applicant’s number from the group).
2. Decide which group has high rate of selection. For optimistic workers transaction,
the higher selection rate is most beneficial. For adverse workers dealings, the most
favored group has the lower rate.
3. Determine impacts ratio through making comparison of the rate of selection for all the
groups with that of highest group (divide rate of selection for the group by selection rate
for higher group).

QUESTIONS 4
4. See whether rate of selection for the entire group is considerably lesser (such as, normally
less than 80 percent or 4/5th) than rate of selection for high group. In a case, the adverse
impact is stated in most of the conditions (Settlage, 2015).
Moreover, in 1971, the Supreme Court of USA firstly defined the disparate impact
theory. The disparate impact theory is defined in the famous case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,
401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971). Before the passage of the Civil Rights Act 1964, Duke Power Co.
had the approach of separating the workers as per the criteria of race. Particularly, at its Dan
River plant, the people of America and Africa were permitted to do work only in "labor division"
wherever the work amongst the lower-paying positions in an organization in place of the 1 of 4
"operating" divisions. Subsequent to enactment of Title VII of Civil Rights Act 1964, the
corporation altered the policies. It also added the requirements of the higher school diploma or
the least scores upon the IQ tests for posts in the fields excluding the labor department, in this
way ending the larger number of the applicants of Africa and America for the position outside
that section. It is found by the court that under Title VII, in a case when the tests disparately
influence ethnic minority group, the managers must state that these tests are "rationally related"
to work for which the test is needed (Glassman & Verna, 2016).
In this way, the desperate discrimination impact not like the desperate treatment puts
focus upon the consequences of the discrimination to a worker. This impact can be mortification,
harassment, or even physical injuries to the employees. The impact may be measured by
assessing for any of the effects upon the workers (Cook, 2015). One perfect example is wherever
the worker is discriminated in against of the contemporaries by being provided poor treatment
through administration of company. It may lead to anxiety as well as other health effects that

QUESTIONS 5
may negatively influence the people. It also decreases the morale of the workers in significant
manner.

QUESTIONS 6
References
Carbado, D. W. (2017). Color Coded Criminal Procedure-Exploring How Law Enables Racism,
Disparate Treatment, Violence. New York: Routledge
Cook, R. (2015). Discrimination revised: reviewing the relationship between social groups,
disparate treatment, and disparate impact. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 2(2), 219-244.
Craig, A., Peters, P., Chen, L., & Chapman, J. (2019). Disparate care in primary treatment of
advanced ovarian cancer: Do we maintain equipoise?. Gynecologic Oncology, 154(1), e6.
Glassman, A. M., & Verna, S. (2016). Disparate impact one year after inclusive communities. J.
Affordable Hous.&Cmty. Dev. L., 25, 11.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971)
Kahn, K. B., & Martin, K. D. (2016). Policing and race: Disparate treatment, perceptions, and
policy responses. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10(1), 82-121.
Nieto, M. L. (2017). Human Resource Management. France: Red Globe Press
Sanchez, E. N. (2018). Analytical Nightmare: The Materially Adverse Action Requirement in
Disparate Treatment Cases. Cath. UL Rev., 67, 575.
Settlage, R. G. (2015). Uniquely Unhelpful: The U Visa's Disparate Treatment of Immigrant
Victims of Domestic Violence. Rutgers UL Rev., 68, 1747.

QUESTIONS 7
Younossi, Z. M., Bacon, B. R., Dieterich, D. T., Flamm, S. L., Kowdley, K., Milligan,
S., ...&Nezam, A. (2016). Disparate access to treatment regimens in chronic hepatitis C patients:
data from the TRIO network. Journal of viral hepatitis, 23(6), 447-454.