Theory Of Discrimination : The Price Waterhous V. Hopkins Case
1184 Words5 Pages
According to Melvin and Katz (2015), Lian’s denial of promotion falls under the mixed motive theory of discrimination. Mixed motive theory applies when motives are both legitimate and discriminatory, thus providing protection under Title VII. Therefore, Lian must prove that his protected-class membership was a substantial factor in the outcome of the promotion denial. Once Lian establishes proof of discrimination, the burden to prove the decision was made for legitimate reasons shifts to the employer.
The mixed motive theory is better understood by looking at the historical precedent of the theory. According to Runyan (2017), the Price Waterhous v. Hopkins case was the first Supreme Court recognition of mixed motives. The case differed…show more content… While the fire department may have no intention of discrimination, if less than 80 percent of a protected class is selected of the highest selected group then disparate impact is occurring per Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidelines. Therefore, the fire department, absent a clear linking between job necessity and weight requirement, is in violation of the disparate impact theory.
Further insight into this matter can be obtained through Rosenow’s (2014) research on disparate impact. Disparate impact results when a protected class — race, color, religion, sex or national origin — is impacted in a way that creates a disproportionate effect among the protected group. In addition, liability does not require malicious intent from the employer or knowledge of the occurrence of disparate impact. Therefore, the plaintiff must provide evidence of an employment policy that has an impact on the protected class. After the plaintiff shows prima facie, the employer must provide evidence that the employment policy is a necessary requirement for the business. In Dothard’s case, if the fire department proves the weight lifting requirement is indeed a business necessity then she must prove that the fire department refused an alternative strategy that would have met the business necessity.
Question 3: Pettigrew is a woman insurance adjustor for a company that has a rule that no adjustors are allowed to enroll in law school because the employer perceives it as a conflict of