Disparate Impact Analysis: Evaluating Statistical Data in Employment

This assignment focuses on the analysis of disparate impact, specifically examining the role of statistical evidence in identifying potential discriminatory practices within employment. The assignment references a chapter from a textbook that discusses three types of statistical evidence: applicant flow statistics, stock statistics, and concentration statistics. Applicant flow statistics compare selection rates between different groups, stock statistics compare the percentage of employees in a job category with their availability in the relevant population, and concentration statistics compare the distribution of employees across different job categories. The assignment tasks the student with formulating an opinion based on the data presented, regarding the standards or guidelines for deciding whether statistical differences reflect discrimination.

DISCUSSION QUESTION TO ANSWER;
Review the Chapter 2 Application "Disparate Impact: What Do the Statistics Mean?" starting at
the bottom of page 85. As stated in question #2, what do you recommend regarding standards or
guidelines for deciding whether statistical differences reflect discrimination?
THE BELOW PARAGRAPH HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW WAS TAKEN FROM THE TEXT
REGARDING DISPARATE IMPACT
Disparate Impact.
Disparate impact, also known as adverse impact, focuses on the effect of employment practices,
rather than on the motive or intent underlying them. Accordingly, the emphasis here is on the need
for direct evidence that, as a result of a protected characteristic, people are being adversely affected
by a prac-tice. Statistical evidence must be presented to support a claim of adverse impact. 15
Three types of statistical evidence may be used, and these are shown in Exhibit 2.5. Refer to “Legal
Issues” in Chapters 3 and 7 for elaboration.Shown first in the exhibit are applicant flow statistics,
which look at differences in selection rates (proportion of applicants hired) among different groups
for a particu-lar job. If the differences are large enough, this suggests that the effect of the selec-tion
system is discriminatory. In the example, the selection rate for men is .50 (or 50%) and for women it
is .11 (or 11%), suggesting the possibility of discrimination.A second type of statistical evidence
involves the use of stock statistics. Here, the percentage of women or minorities actually employed
in a job category is com-pared with their availability in the relevant population. Relevant is defined in
terms of such things as “qualified,” “interested,” or “geographic.” In the example shown, there is a
disparity in the percentage of minorities employed (10%) compared with their availability (30%),
which suggests their underutilization.The third type of evidence involves the use of concentration
statistics. Here, the percentages of women or minorities in various job categories are compared to
see if they are concentrated in certain workforce categories. In the example shown, women are
concentrated in clerical jobs (97%), men are concentrated in production (85%) and managerial
(95%) jobs, and men and women are roughly equally concentrated in sales jobs (45% and 55%,
respectively).
Copyright | McGraw-Hill Higher Education | Staffing Organizations | Edition 8 | Printed from
www.chegg.com

THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE EXHIBIT BELOW IS THE EXHIBIT THE PROFESSOR IS
REFERING TO FORMULATE OUR OPINION ON REGARDING DATA THEREIN.
EXHIBIT 2-5 (AS STATED IN TEXT BOOK)