Disparate Treatment Case Study

According to Walsh (2013) it is acknowledged that, disparate treatment involves discriminatory intent or purpose by the employer. It forbids employers from treating candidates or employees differently because of their association in a protected class. Primarily, disparate treatment is a way to prove unlawful employment discrimination. Thus, an employee who makes a disparate treatment claim alleges that he/she was treated differently than other employees who were in similar situated classes and that difference was based on a protected class characteristic. So that means that an employer treated the employee worse because of his or her association with race, gender, age, or other protected class trait.

Equally important, it is necessary to understand that protected class characteristics consist of attributes such as race, sex, national origin, and religion. Further, these characteristics are not things that can determine if a person can or cannot perform job duties or be utilized for grounds in determining who gets employment opportunities. Therefore, in Griggs v. Duke Power, the Supreme Court recognized disparate impact Title VII claims when it ruled that Title VII prohibits facially neutral employment practices that had a statistically disparate impact on members of protected classes (race, gender, national origin) unless employers provided …show more content…
Therefore, if employers strive to be fair and treat like situations alike regardless of the protected class characteristics of the employee involved will be far less likely to discrimination. Highly important, is that it's imperative to implement the general strategy for avoiding adverse impact is for employers to closely examine factors used in making employment decisions for their potential to exclude protected class groups and for evidence of their job