The Three-Part Test for Disparate Impact Claims
To defend against a disparate impact claim, employers must navigate a complex legal landscape. A key aspect of this defense is proving that the practice in question is a business necessity.
Demonstrating Business Necessity
Once a prima facie case of disparate impact is established, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the challenged practice is “job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”
The business necessity defense requires showing that the practice is necessary to the safe and efficient operation of the business. Employers must demonstrate that the practice has a manifest relationship to the job in question.
- Validation studies may be necessary to establish that selection criteria accurately predict job performance.
- The standard for business necessity varies depending on the nature of the job and the specific practice being challenged.
- Courts generally give more deference to practices related to workplace safety than to general efficiency concerns.
- Even if a practice is necessary, it must be applied in a manner that minimizes disparate impact to the extent possible while still meeting business needs.
By understanding and effectively applying the business necessity defense, employers can better navigate disparate impact claims and ensure their practices and policies are compliant with the law.
Statistical Analysis in Disparate Impact Cases
Understanding the nuances of disparate impact liability is crucial for employers to avoid unintended discrimination in their employment practices. The concept has been shaped by various legal cases and guidelines, one of which is the 80% Rule.
