Disparate Treatment

The process of establishing if an action/policy is discriminatory can be very challenging. However, a number of theories seek to differentiate actions that constitute discrimination and those that do not. Disparate treatment Theory is amongst the most commonly used theories that have been used to ascertain whether an act or policy amounts to discrimination or not. The theory argues that one is subject to discrimination if they are treated less favorably than others are in similar situations (Bent, 2011).

Through the years, America has made an overall improvement in eliminating discrimination, inequality and slavery and focusing more on inclusion, equal rights, and equal opportunity. Despite a considerable improvement, there are corporations and individuals that often revert to archaic means of treating employees, creating hostile environments. Consequently, different advocacy groups and laws still remain in effect and continue to evolve to protect the citizens and non-citizens of the USA.

Disparate treatment entails claims of deliberate and intended discrimination in which the employer knowingly and intentionally discriminated against people on the basis of specific characteristics such as race or sex. In contrast, disparate impact or also known as adverse impact focuses on the effect of employment practices rather than on the reason or purpose underlying them (Heneman, Judge, & Kammeyer-­Mueller, 2012). Theoretically, the main differentiation between disparate treatment and disparate impact is the intent of your employer. Disparate impact involves a policy which your employer may not have intended to be discriminatory, but which nonetheless affects one entity more negatively than another. Disparate treatment, on the other

Disparate treatment is when a person with a protected trait or is in a protected trait is treated worse than a person with out that protected trait or outside that protected trait and this difference in treatment is because of the respective protective trait.

Discrimination is treating an induvial or group differently. I see this many times when I worked on a PCU floor. Doctors would listen, take my opinion because they knew I was an experienced nurse, but treat the new nurses very differently.

Discrimination in the workforce is not only illegal, but it has been the center of controversy for multiple cases throughout its existence. The purpose of this writing is to reflect on particular personal circumstances based around actual events. First will be a clearly defined section of the Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, followed by a brief description of personal experiences involving discrimination, and concluding with a reflection as to how the American workforce is protected by law. The writing will cover any ethically related issues, personal thoughts and ideas, and illustrations of how the law pertains directly to personal events, as well as provide direct links to any and all reference material covered under the purpose of this writing.

The difference between a disparate treatment and a disparate impact claim is the display of overt discrimination versus an impact of an employer’s policy. Disparate treatment is overt discrimination against an individual based upon a protected characteristic (race, gender, etc.) There need not be an evil intent to discriminate. The individual must simply be able to be shown that the difference in treatment occurred with no sustainable justification, leaving a prohibited category as the only remaining conclusion. While disparate impact is based on the employer’s policy, while neutral on its face (facially neutral), and has a disparate or adverse impact on a protected group. If such a policy affects protected groups more harshly than others, illegal

The case of Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) brought to the forefront issues that Human Resource professionals may have to address within their organization. This case centered on disparate impact and disparate impact. Although these terms are used, interchangeable impact would prove to be significant in that case. This case centered around Duke Power openly discriminated against a protected class (blacks). In order to be hired into any department other than labor, the company required a high school diploma and/ or a passing score on two tests. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. Despite this passage,

In, addition the caucasian employers who possessed similar educational backgrounds and work performance, received promotions and an increase in wages, within a shorter time frame (Belton, 2014).This case was described an example of a direct, intentional discrimination or is defined as disparate

The number of discrimination charges reached a record high in 2010, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a government agency that investigates discrimination charges on the basis of race, sex, national origin, religion, retaliation, age, disability, and genetic information (Wong, 2011, para. 1). Although the majority of discrimination is unethical and unnecessary in the workplace, certain benefits can be seen if it is executed properly. Understanding discrimination is becoming more crucial as the workforce continues to become more diverse. Knowing where discrimination does and does not belong in the workplace will help employers create effective and progressive workforces.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 empowered minorities in many different ways, most notably in prohibiting discrimination in the workplace. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act expressly prohibits discrimination in hiring, firing, promotion, pay, benefits and other aspects of employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). This law was seen as a major boon to minorities and women in the workforce who had, for years, been subjected to unfair hiring and remuneration practices. But, in order to ensure that there was broad fairness and that employers were abiding by the new law, some steps needed to be taken. One way to monitor employers was to force them to have a certain number of minorities and women on their workforces at all times, greatly increasing the number of minority employees. These affirmative action laws, while still controversial today, have made a huge difference in the composition of our nation's workforce and in the lives of those who have been affected.

Disparate treatment may range from obvious discrimination, to subtle differences in treatment. Documination may be needed to file a complaint with the employment division in her state, based on discrimination by disparate treatment. Keeping a paper trail of documented issues in regards to discrimination is very important because these cases can lead to legal actions.

We have discussed so far this week the obvious ways in which discrimination can affect various groups within a society. However, what if there was a form of discrimination that is buried deep within an institution that may not appear to be discriminatory to the naked eye? This particular form is known as institutional discrimination. McNamara and Burns (2009) stated that it is “particularly distasteful because it is the type of mistreatment of certain groups whereby the people engaging in the behavior do not realize they are doing it” (p.14). This type of discrimination can be quite challenging to depict as it is embedded in every type of institution whether one believes it to be true or not. You may find yourself wondering that if rules

The main difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact is the intentions of the employer. Disparate impact involves a policy which the employer may not have intended to be discriminatory, but affects one particular group more than another. Disparate treatment involves action by an employer which is definitely intended to discriminate against a particular group, such as different pay rate for women and men. There are several kinds of disparate treatment claims that can be brought against an employer. A claim can be brought against an employer that is paying women less than men that are performing the same job duties. Another claim against an employer could be the lack of promotion based upon gender. Ultimately any employer that

The difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact is intentional and non- intentional, but also entails additional items (Heneman, Judge, & Kammeyer, 2012). Disparate treatment is when the employers shows intent to discriminate and wanted to discriminate against potential, current, or past employees. In cases on disparate treatment the plaintiff has proof that employers intentionally committed a discriminatory act.