The disparate treatment and disparate impact are two theories of discrimination. Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination in the workplace imposing different standards on different individuals on their characteristics of protected class (i.e. sex, race) (Robinson and Franklin, 2010, p. 58). The theory of discrimination of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had only one form of unlawful discrimination, which was disparate treatment.
Burden of proof, is one method of disparate treatment, which is proof from the individual that filed a claim against the employer in order to establish that discrimination actually occurred. This led to the cases below:
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v Green (1973) and Texas Department of Community Affairs …show more content…
58). The Age Discrimination Employment Act claims fall mostly under the disparate impact along with most claims identifiable under the American Disabilities Act (Ryan, 2012). Unlike disparate treatment of having burden of proof of intended discrimination, the disparate impact is unintentional discrimination and proof is not required. The adverse impact also the disparate impact origin came from Griggs v Duke Power Co. (1971), the landmark case was a result of the thirteen African American employees who worked for Duke Power Company. The African American employees worked in the labor department and were underpaid, and to move to another area the workers had to have a high school diploma or GED and take an aptitude test. Along with having the diploma and passing the test with a satisfactory score, each applicant had to meet the standards, and if passed they were hired without regards to the protected class (Robinson & Franklin, 2010, p. …show more content…
In my opinion, providing burden of proof with intentional discrimination that one was discriminated based on their protected class and going up against your employer who will not admit to the discriminatory accusations would be harder to prove evidence of disparate treatment. The employee will have to prove prima facie and be successful in order for the employer to be held accountable for the unfavorable personnel actions and in turn if the employer is successful it goes back to the employee having to prove that the legitimate claim was justifiable, because most employers are clever not to blatantly
Burden of proof, is one method of disparate treatment, which is proof from the individual that filed a claim against the employer in order to establish that discrimination actually occurred. This led to the cases below:
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v Green (1973) and Texas Department of Community Affairs …show more content…
58). The Age Discrimination Employment Act claims fall mostly under the disparate impact along with most claims identifiable under the American Disabilities Act (Ryan, 2012). Unlike disparate treatment of having burden of proof of intended discrimination, the disparate impact is unintentional discrimination and proof is not required. The adverse impact also the disparate impact origin came from Griggs v Duke Power Co. (1971), the landmark case was a result of the thirteen African American employees who worked for Duke Power Company. The African American employees worked in the labor department and were underpaid, and to move to another area the workers had to have a high school diploma or GED and take an aptitude test. Along with having the diploma and passing the test with a satisfactory score, each applicant had to meet the standards, and if passed they were hired without regards to the protected class (Robinson & Franklin, 2010, p. …show more content…
In my opinion, providing burden of proof with intentional discrimination that one was discriminated based on their protected class and going up against your employer who will not admit to the discriminatory accusations would be harder to prove evidence of disparate treatment. The employee will have to prove prima facie and be successful in order for the employer to be held accountable for the unfavorable personnel actions and in turn if the employer is successful it goes back to the employee having to prove that the legitimate claim was justifiable, because most employers are clever not to blatantly