42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) does not require employers to excuse pregnant employees from legitimate job requirements under a disparate impact theory.

Dormeyer v. Comerica Bank-Illinois · filed 2000-07-24(k)(1)(A)(i)

The argument here is not that the employer has adopted rules or practices that arbitrarily exclude pregnant women, but that the employer should be required to excuse pregnant employees from having to satisfy the legitimate requirements of their job. It is an argument for subsidizing a class of workers, and the concept of disparate impact does not stretch that far.

Section 2000e-2(k) permits an employment test with disparate impact when the employer shows that it is job-related and consistent with business necessity and the plaintiff shows no less discriminatory alternative.

Firefighters' Institute for Racial Equality Ex Rel. Anderson v. City of St. Louis · filed 2000-08-11(k)

Accordingly, we find the 1997 battalion chiefs exam was related to safe and efficient job performance and consistent with business necessity. In addition, FIRE failed to present any evidence of a less discriminatory procedure. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to the City and Local 73 on the Title VII disparate impact claim.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) does not require employers to excuse pregnant employees from legitimate job requirements under a disparate-impact theory.

Dormeyer, Jennifer v. LaSalle Bank, N.A. · filed 2000-08-30(k)(1)(A)(i)

The argument here is not that the employer has adopted rules or practices that arbitrarily exclude pregnant women, but that the employer should be required to excuse pregnant employees from having to satisfy the legitimate requirements of their job. It is an argument for subsidizing a class of workers, and the concept of disparate impact does not stretch that far.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to identify a particular facially neutral employment practice; vague allegations do not suffice.

Scheidecker v. Arvig Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2000-11-09(k)(1)(A)

To establish a disparate impact claim, a plaintiff must prove, as a threshold matter, that the challenged employment practice, while facially neutral, has a disparate impact on certain employees “because of their membership in a protected group.” ... Both Von Ruden and Scheidecker fail to identify any facially neutral employment practice of the Defendant.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to show that the challenged practice caused an adverse impact before relying on a less discriminatory alternative.

Price, Lisa v. City of Chicago · filed 2001-05-24(k)(1)(A)(ii)

We, therefore, cannot accept Ms. Price’s argument that she need not establish an adverse impact in order to impose disparate impact liability on the City.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate-impact claimant to show that a particular employment practice disproportionately affects a protected class.

In re Scott · filed 2001-06-29(k)(1)(A)(i)

In order to make out a disparate impact claim, however, appellant must demonstrate discrimination against himself as a member of a protected class.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate impact claimant to identify a facially neutral employment practice and show its discriminatory impact.

Reid v. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. · filed 2001-08-02(k)

To prove disparate impact, Plaintiffs will have to demonstrate that Defendants “use[] a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race ____” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k). Plaintiffs, therefore, will have to identify “a facially neutral employment practice coupled with proof of its discriminatory impact.”

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires evidence that a challenged employment practice caused a disparate impact.

Russell v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of RI · filed 2001-09-11(k)(1)(A)(i)

At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff has not provided any evidence on the issue of causation. For this reason alone, the Court must grant Enterprise RI’s motion for summary judgment on the disparate impact claim.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A) requires an employer to show that a challenged practice is job related and consistent with business necessity after a plaintiff establishes a disparate impact case.

Arthur v. College of St. Benedict · filed 2001-10-01(k)(1)(A)

Once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the employer bears the burden to show the challenged practice is job related and consistent with business necessity. ... Accordingly, the Court finds defendants have satisfied their burden of proving business necessity, and thus, summary judgment is granted for defendants on plaintiffs’ Title VII and MHRA claim.

In a disparate impact claim, the employer must establish that the challenged practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Smith v. Texaco Inc · filed 2001-10-26(k)(1)(A)(i)

... the defendants must establish that the “challenged practice is job-related for the posi- tion in question and consistent with business ne- cessity.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(I).

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to identify an employment practice, show a disparity, and establish that the practice caused it.

Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad · filed 2001-10-09(k)(1)(A)(i)

To make this showing, a plaintiff must (1) identify a policy or practice, (2) demonstrate that a disparity exists, and (3) establish a causal relationship between the two.

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate impact plaintiff to identify a specific employment practice that causes a significant disparity affecting a protected group.

Janet Stout Juliana Nedd Sheila Wright Lee Harrison v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General · filed 2002-01-10(k)(1)(A)(i)

The postal inspectors fail to identify a specific employment practice that disproportionately excludes female applicants because of the applicants’ gender. The statistical evidence offered is of dubious reliance, and in any case, fails to show an actual disparity in the intermediate interview selection stage. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Service on the disparate impact claims.

Section 2000e-2(k) places the burden of proving business necessity on the defendant and the burden of showing reasonable alternatives on the plaintiff in a disparate impact case.

Zottola v. City of Oakland · filed 2002-03-04(k)

The burden of persuasion with respect to business necessity is on defendants, but the ensuing burden of showing reasonable alternatives shifts to the plaintiff. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k). Because the shifting burdens of proof in a disparate impact case constitute distinct and separable stages of litigation, we hold that the district judge did not abuse her discretion when she permitted re-trial solely on the issue of alternative measures.

Section 2000e-2(k) can impose liability for a selection procedure that adversely affects minorities when a qualified, less discriminatory alternative exists.

Cotter v. City of Boston · filed 2002-03-21(k)

Under Title VII, an employment selection procedure that adversely affects minorities can lead to employer liability if it can be shown that an alternative selection procedure existed that yielded qualified applicants while resulting in less adverse impact on minorities.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to show that a specific employment practice caused a sufficiently substantial adverse impact on a protected group.

Jackson v. University of New Haven · filed 2002-10-30(k)(1)(A)(i)

In making out a prima facie case for disparate impact under Title VII, the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that a specific policy or practice of the defendant has had a disproportionately negative impact on the plaintiffs protected class. ... Here, the relevant sample size is only 14 (of the 36 applicants, the race of only 14 has been identified), which is too small to yield a statistically significant result.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to identify an employment practice, show a disparity, and establish that the practice caused it.

Gulino v. Board of Education of the City School District of New York · filed 2002-11-25(k)(1)(A)(i)

To establish a prima facie showing in a disparate impact case, plaintiffs must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer “uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). To make this showing, a plaintiff must (1) identify a policy or practice, (2) demonstrate that a disparity exists, and (3) establish a causal connection between the two.

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie disparate impact claim without applicant-pool statistics when those data are unavailable and other appropriate evidence supports the claim.

Malave v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General · filed 2003-02-20(k)

Accordingly, our decision to remand this ease to the District Court should not be construed as anything other than a rejection of the District Court’s adoption of a rule that the lack of statistical information as to an applicant pool always renders it impossible to establish a prima facie disparate impact case.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to identify a specific, facially neutral employment practice and show that it caused a statistically significant disparity.

Cooper v. Southern Co. · filed 2003-03-31(k)

To establish a claim under a theory of disparate impact, Plaintiff must show 1) the existence of a statistically significant disparity among members of different groups affected by employment decisions; 2) the existence of a specific, facially neutral employment practice; and 3) the existence of a causal nexus between the specific, facially neutral employment practice and the statistically significant disparity.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to link a specific, facially neutral employment practice to a statistically significant disparity.

Cooper v. Southern Co. · filed 2003-03-31(k)

However, simply showing that Plaintiff was subject to subjective policies does not establish a prima facie case of disparate impact. Plaintiff must also show the existence of a causal nexus between these specific, facially neutral employment practices and a statistically significant disparity.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to identify a specific, facially neutral employment practice and show that it caused a statistically significant disparity.

Cooper v. Southern Co. · filed 2003-03-31(k)

Similarly, in this case Plaintiff fails to point to any evidence linking Defendants’ use of subjective criteria to the alleged statistical disparity. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs disparate impact claim is granted.

Section 2000e-2(k) permits disparate impact challenges to employee benefits, but a deliberate decision to provide different plans to different employee groups is analyzed as disparate treatment.

Ramos v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2003-04-02(k)

Thus, the controversy centers on the markedly different treatment given to two types of individuals, i.e., Puerto Rico employees vis á vis non-Puerto Rico employees which falls squarely under the disparate treatment analysis and not on the consequences brought about by the adoption of a particular pension plan.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact claimant to show that a facially neutral employment practice caused a disparity; statistical evidence raising a genuine factual dispute can defeat summary judgment.

Frank v. Xerox Corp. · filed 2003-09-30(k)(1)(A)(i)

To establish a disparate impact claim, the claimants must prove as part of their prima facie case that Xerox maintains a facially-neutral policy or practice that caused a disparate impact on its black employees. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i)(2003); Gonzales v. City of New Braunfels, 176 F.3d 834, 839 n. 26 (5th Cir.1999). ... While Xerox asserts that the Plaintiffs' statistical evidence is inaccurate, incomplete and has not been analyzed, we find that the evidence creates a material issue of fact as to disparity and, therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact claimant to show that a facially neutral employment practice caused a disparate impact on a protected group.

Frank v. Xerox Corporation · filed 2003-12-15(k)(1)(A)(i)

To establish a disparate impact claim, the claimants must prove as part of their prima facie case that Xerox maintains a facially-neutral policy or practice that caused a disparate impact on its black employees.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i) requires a disparate-impact claimant to identify the specific employment practice being challenged; a general allegation about hiring practices is insufficient.

Voltz v. Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. · filed 2004-01-22(k)(1)(B)(i)

Here, Voltz never identifies an employment practice and instead makes the general allegation that “Coca-Cola’s employment and hiring practices do not serve any legitimate goal other than unlawful discrimination.” Appellant App. at 5 (Voltz’s complaint). This is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) and (2) prohibits employment practices that have a discriminatory effect based on race, sex, religion, or national origin.

James McBRIDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee · filed 1977-03-11(a)(1) and (2)

Of course, an employment practice which is discriminatory in effect on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin violates 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and (2).

Section 2000e-2 treats a facially neutral employment test that disproportionately harms minority applicants and lacks proper validation as discriminatory.

Firefighters Institute v. City of St. Louis · filed 1978-11-29

The use of a testing device, although neutral on its face, which has a racially disparate impact on members of minority groups and which has not been properly validated by the employer, constitutes a discriminatory act for which Title VII affords a remedy.

Section 2000e-2 requires a prima facie showing of disparate impact from the overall hiring process when a challenged test is one component and there is no evidence of discriminatory intent.

Brown v. New Haven Civil Service Board · filed 1979-07-27

The plaintiffs have thus failed to put in issue facts that justify penetrating beyond the racially neutral results of the hiring process, and have thus failed to make the prima facie showing required by Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i) permits a disparate impact claim to challenge an employer’s overall decisionmaking process when its elements cannot be separated for analysis.

McReynolds v. Sodexho Marriott Services, Inc. · filed 2004-12-20(k)(1)(B)(i)

Having reviewed the wealth of evidence before it, the Court is more than satisfied that plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence that the elements of defendant’s decision-making process are not capable of separation for analysis, and this process is subjective and discretionary.

An employer may establish job relatedness through content validity without statistical evidence correlating test scores with job performance.

Banos, Raul v. City of Chicago · filed 2005-02-14(k)(1)(A)

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertion, our pre-Bryant cases authorized proceeding under the content-validity approach to establish job-relatedness, which as we have said does not require employers to come forth with statistical evidence.

A disparate-impact plaintiff may use relevant statistical analyses beyond the four-fifths rule to show that a selection practice adversely affects a protected group.

Isabel v. City of Memphis · filed 2005-04-11(k)(1)(A)(i)

Thus, notwithstanding a test’s compliance with the four-fifths rule, other analyses may still reveal an adverse impact.

Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of disparate impact, the employer must show that the challenged practice is job related and consistent with business necessity.

El v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · filed 2005-07-12(k)(1)(A)(i)

Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to show that the employment practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires evidence of an employment policy or practice that disproportionately affects a protected class to support a disparate impact claim.

Gullett, Connie M. v. Town Normal IL · filed 2005-11-23(k)

Here, as we have noted, there was no evidence that the Town had a policy of hiring full-time street workers only from the Waste Division. According to Gullett’s own evidence, the “policy” was really only Slagell’s preference. Summary judgment on Gullett’s disparate impact claim was also appropriate.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires an employer to prove that an employment test with a disparate impact is job related and consistent with business necessity.

United States v. City of Erie, PA · filed 2005-12-13(k)(1)(A)(i)

The applicable burdens of proof in a disparate impact case under Title VII are set forth at § 703(k) of the statute, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k). That provision permits law enforcement agencies to assess candidates for police officer positions with a physical test that results in a disparate impact on females only if the test is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.”

A disparate impact claim can proceed when a facially neutral employment practice allegedly causes a gender disparity, even if earlier lawful layoffs help explain why the practice affects women disproportionately.

Staghi v. National RR Passenger Corp. · filed 2005-12-30(k)

Giving Plaintiffs the benefit of every reasonable inference, it is clear that they have made out a prima facie case that PERS-4 caused the alleged gender disparity in management positions.

Section 2000e-2 permits a disparate-impact claim based on a hostile work environment caused by an employment policy.

Maldonado v. City of Altus, OK. · filed 2006-01-11(k)(1)(A)(i)

But there is no reason to prohibit discriminatory-impact claims predicated on a hostile work environment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(2) prohibits employment practices that limit or segregate employees in ways that adversely affect their opportunities because of race or sex.

Colindres v. QuietFlex Manufacturing · filed 2006-03-31(a)(2)

The disparate impact basis for Title VII liability is based on section 703(a)(2) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2), which forbids an employer to “limit, segregate, or classify” employees “in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee” because of race or sex.

Section 2000e-2 allows a disparate impact claim based on subjective hiring and promotion practices.

Mulligan v. South Carolina Department of Transportation · filed 2006-07-19(a)(2)

The court declines to adopt the Lott Court's rationale, finding instead that a claim of subjective decisionmaking may be the basis of a disparate impact claim.

A Title VII disparate-impact claim fails when the employer’s practice serves legitimate employment goals and the plaintiff identifies no alternative practice that would meet those goals without disparate impact.

Smith v. Allstate Insurance · filed 2006-08-16(k)

Because Smith has not attempted to show that an alternative practice would have accomplished those goals without any disparate impact, we need not discuss whether she has made out a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to show that a particular employment practice causes a disparity based on a protected characteristic.

Wright v. Stern · filed 2006-09-15(k)(1)(A)(i)

To meet their prima facie burden in a disparate impact case, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the employer “uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(l)(A)(I).

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to show that the challenged employment practice caused a disparity; a disparity alone is insufficient.

Foxworth v. Pennsylvania State Police · filed 2007-02-01(k)(1)(A)(i)

Moreover, we note that to raise an inference that the disqualification procedure causes racial disparity among the cadet pool, Foxworth needed to demonstrate at a minimum that there is an actual disparity among cadets and compare pre-1997 figures (when the PSP instituted the disqualification procedures) to post-1997 figures for cadet hiring.

A Title VII disparate impact claim does not automatically require a jury instruction on the EEOC’s 4/5 rule.

Stackhouse v. PA State Pol · filed 2007-02-22(a)

We also conclude that the District Court appropriately declined to give a jury instruction on the 4/5 rule.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate-impact claim to identify a facially neutral employment practice; a policy of failing to investigate apparent racial inequities does not qualify.

Mathis v. Wachovia · filed 2007-03-07(k)(1)(A)(i)

Mathis claims that the employment practice in question is Wachovia’s “policy” of not doing investigations into “the apparent racial inequities” in the workplace. This is clearly not a facially neutral employment policy and as a result, Mathis cannot successfully assert a disparate impact claim.

A disparate-impact claim requires evidence that an identified employment practice caused a disparity affecting a protected group.

Crawford v. United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2007-08-16(k)(1)(A)

A prima facie case of discrimination by disparate impact requires that Crawford: (1) identify the challenged employment practice or policy, and pinpoint the government’s use of it; (2) demonstrate a disparate impact on a protected group under Title VII; and (3) demonstrate a causal relationship between the identified practice and the disparate impact. ... Further, even if the court accepted Crawford’s statistical analysis, she has not shown that the use of background checks is the cause of any statistical imbalance.

A disparate impact claim requires proof that a specific employment practice adversely affected a protected group.

Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority · filed 2008-03-21(k)(1)(A)(i)

Dunlap did not present evidence that the practices used in his interview were ever used for other hiring decisions, so no statistical proof can show that a protected group was adversely impacted. We therefore conclude that Dunlap challenged only the process used in his own interview, and the district court clearly erred in finding a prima facie case- of disparate impact.

A disparate impact claim requires proof that a specific employment practice adversely affects a protected group; evidence about one applicant’s interview alone does not establish a prima facie case.

Dunlap v. TVA · filed 2008-03-21(k)(1)(A)(i)

Dunlap did not present evidence that the practices used in his interview were ever used for other hiring decisions, so no statistical proof can show that a protected group was adversely impacted. We therefore conclude that Dunlap challenged only the process used in his own interview, and the district court clearly erred in finding a prima facie case of disparate impact.

Section 2000e-2 allows a decisionmaking process to be analyzed as one employment practice when its elements cannot be separated for analysis.

Howard v. Gutierrez · filed 2008-08-18(k)(1)(B)(i)

The performance appraisal system here may properly fall under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, which states that when "the elements of a respondent’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis, the deci-sionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment practice.”

Section 2000e-2 does not require an employer to make a formal finding of disparate impact before canceling a promotion process whose results present a significant risk of violating Title VII.

Oakley v. City of Memphis · filed 2008-09-08(k)(1)(A)(i)

Neither Title VII nor agency guidelines require a formal finding of disparate impact.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to identify a specific employment practice with a discriminatory effect.

Reshard v. Peters · filed 2008-09-29(k)(1)(A)(i)

Here, the plaintiff has not identified any specific practice or policy of the Department of Transportation that is neutral on its face and in intent but that is nonetheless discriminatory in effect against blacks, women, or older employees. Further, the plaintiff has not alleged any facts in her submissions to the Court that raise a genuine issue of material fact as to her disparate impact claim.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to identify a particular employment practice and prove that it caused a disparity affecting a protected group.

Shollenbarger v. Planes Moving & Storage · filed 2008-10-20(k)(1)(A)(i)

To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, a plaintiff must: (1) identify the “particular employment practice”; (2) show a disparate impact on a protected group; and (3) prove that the employment practice caused the disparity.

A disparate impact plaintiff must identify a specific employment practice or policy that caused a significant disparate impact on a protected group.

Semsroth v. City of Wichita · filed 2008-12-22(k)(1)(A)

Instead, to establish a prima facie claim of disparate impact, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (i) a specific identifiable employment practice or policy caused (ii) a significant disparate impact on a protected group.

Section 2000e-2 covers employment practices that cause racial disparate impact even without discriminatory intent.

National Ass'n for Advancement of Colored People v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue · filed 2009-02-18(a)(2)

Title VII prohibits both intentional discrimination and “disparate impact” discrimination, i.e., “employment practices adopted without a deliberately discriminatory motive, [which] may in operation be functionally equivalent to intentional discrimination.”

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) allows an employer to defend a practice with a disparate impact by showing that it is job related and consistent with business necessity.

Pacheco v. New York Presbyterian Hospital · filed 2009-01-09(k)(1)(A)(i)

At the second stage of the burden-shifting framework, Defendant has the burden to show that the policy is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(l)(A)(i); ... As discussed at length in connection with Plaintiffs disparate treatment claim, the Hospital has established two non-discriminatory business reasons for asking employees in the ARRA unit to speak English while at work.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to show that a particular employment practice causes a disparity affecting a protected group.

Adorno v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey · filed 2009-03-31(k)(1)(A)(i)

Plaintiffs have simply presented no evidence “reveal[ing] a causal relationship” between the Port Authority’s policies or practices and a disparity in promotions for Hispanic officers.

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to show that a facially neutral employment practice significantly harms a protected group.

MENOKEN v. Whipple · filed 2009-03-23(k)(1)(A)(i)

To establish a prima facie case, Menoken must show that the challenged components of the ALJ examination — SQS, PRI, and geographic preference form — although facially neutral, have a significantly adverse impact on Black and/or female applicants. ... Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of OPM is appropriate on Menoken’s second and third claims insofar as they allege disparate impact discrimination.

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate impact plaintiff to show that a challenged, facially neutral employment practice has a significantly adverse impact on a protected group.

Menoken v. James · filed 2009-03-23(k)(1)(A)(i)

To establish a prima facie case, Menoken must show that the challenged components of the ALJ examination—SQS, PRI, and geographic preference form—although facially neutral, have a significantly adverse impact on Black and/or female applicants. ... Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of OPM is appropriate on Menoken’s second and third claims insofar as they allege disparate impact discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(c) requires evidence that a union’s referral procedures have a disparate impact based on race.

Franklin v. Local 2 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n · filed 2009-05-13(c)

We affirm the district court’s judgment with respect to the disparate impact claim, but we reverse the district court’s summary judgment for Local 2 on the retaliation claim.

Section 2000e-2 requires a strong basis in evidence of potential disparate-impact liability before an employer may intentionally discriminate to avoid that liability.

Ricci v. DeStefano · filed 2009-06-29

We hold only that, under Title VII, before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) permits disparate impact claims based on religion.

Jenkins v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2009-07-01(k)(1)(A)(i)

The defendants’ argument that a disparate impact claim based on religious discrimination does not exist is therefore without merit.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to show that an identified employment practice caused a disparity in the affected population.

Attenborough v. Construction & General Building Laborers' Local 79 · filed 2009-09-29(k)

Disparate impact claims concern the entire population affected by the identified practice, not merely the subset of affected laborers who happen to have brought suit.

A facially race-neutral employment policy can support a disparate-impact claim if it has a disparate impact on the basis of race.

Young v. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP · filed 2010-01-28(k)(1)(A)(i)

Because that categorization does not have facially discriminatory implications, it is facially race-neutral; however, it can still be subject to an actionable discrimination claim if the policy has a “disparate impact on the basis of race.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(l)(A)(i).

Section 2000e-2 requires a strong basis in evidence for race-conscious action taken by an employer or ordered by a court to remedy alleged disparate impact.

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue · filed 2010-04-23

The strong-basis-in-evidence standard applies whether, in order to cure alleged discriminatory impact, the challenged action is initiated by the employer, such as the NHRFR, or whether the employer is ordered by a court to take the challenged action. There must be a strong basis in evidence either for the employer’s action or for the court’s order.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires evidence that a challenged employment practice has a negative disparate impact on a protected group.

Antrum v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2010-05-10(k)(1)(A)(i)

Here, Antrum has not demonstrated that being allowed to wear a beard once proper medical approval is acquired — a special exception for those diagnosed with PFB — constitutes a disparate negative impact under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A) permits employees to establish disparate impact by proving that identified employment practices cause significant racial disparities.

Grant v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville · filed 2010-07-22(k)(1)(A)

First, as to the specific practice required by Dunlap, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ identification of MWS’s practices of tailoring job qualifications for promotions, lateral transfers, selective interview processes for promotions, out-of-class assignments and subjective decision making standards for promotions and discriminatory compensation practices as causing the significant statistical disparities on its black employees, is established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 2000e-2(a)(2) can prohibit a facially neutral employment practice that disproportionately affects a protected group.

Stagi v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · filed 2010-08-16(a)(2)

Under Section 2000e-2(a)(2), an otherwise facially neutral business practice that disproportionately affects or impacts a protected group may be unlawful.

A Title VII disparate-impact claim requires admissible evidence of a protected-group disparity and a causal link to the challenged employment practice.

Randall v. ROLLS-ROYCE CORP. · filed 2010-09-22(k)(1)(A)(i)

To the extent that Randall and Pepmeier are attempting to pursue their individual disparate impact claims, summary judgment in favor of Rolls-Royce is again appropriate for essentially the same reasons underlying our decision that a lack of commonality precluded class certification. In brief, there is a complete lack of admissible evidence to establish an existing gender-based disparity on this basis. Further, Plaintiffs’ expert conspicuously failed to include all the relevant factors affecting the amount of compensation paid to Rolls-Royce management employees, including Randall and Pepmeier. Thus, no casual link has been established between the use of these plaintiffs’ prior year’s salaries as the starting point for the ensuing year’s salary computations and the receipt by them of lower salaries than certain men received.

A disparate impact claim requires the plaintiff to establish a disparate impact; the employer may then prove that the practice is job related and consistent with business necessity, and the plaintiff may show a less discriminatory alternative.

United States v. Massachusetts · filed 2011-05-04(k)(1)

First, the plaintiff must establish that an identified employment practice results in a disparate impact on a protected group [prong one]. Second, the employer must prove that the employment practice is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity [prong two].” Finally, even if the employer satisfies its burden on the job-relatedness question, the plaintiff can still prevail by establishing that there is an alternative employment practice available with less discriminatory impact that still satisfies the employer’s business needs [prong three].

Section 2000e-2(a) permits an employer to defend a race-conscious action taken to avoid disparate-impact liability only when it has a strong basis in evidence that its challenged procedures were not job-related or that it refused a less discriminatory alternative.

United States v. New York City Bd. of Educ. · filed 2011-05-05(a)

Fourth, because of the objective nature of the strong-basis-in-evidence test and its focus on the likelihood of actual liability, the test requires that the employer have a strong basis in evidence either (1) that its challenged employment procedures are not job-related, or (2) that there was a less discriminatory alternative procedure which the employer refused to adopt.

Section 2000e-2(a)(2) covers recruiting practices that have a disparate impact on protected groups, including limited advertising and word-of-mouth recruiting.

United States v. Brennan · filed 2011-05-05(a)(2)

They assert that interpreting § 703(a)(2) to cover recruiting discrimination renders § 704(b) surplusage. This argument, too, is meritless. ... But, as the Government points out, § 704(b) deals with facially discriminatory notices, while disparate impact is about facially neutral practices.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate impact claim to compare similarly situated employees affected and unaffected by a neutral policy.

Malone v. New York Pressman's Union Number 2 · filed 2011-12-13(k)

These groups are not similarly situated: Women and minorities made up a smaller proportion of the Journeyman classification than they did of the Junior Pressman and Casual classifications.

A disparate-impact claim under § 2000e-2(k) requires statistical evidence that the challenged practice adversely affected a protected group.

Fields v. Geithner · filed 2012-01-06(k)(1)(A)(i)

Fields has not presented any statistical evidence showing that the challenged practice deleteriously affected black applicants.

Section 2000e-2 prohibits promotional exams that cause a racial disparate impact unless they are job related and consistent with business necessity.

Bazile v. City of Houston · filed 2012-02-06(k)(1)(A)(i)

Based on the parties’ filings, the evidence, and the applicable law, this court finds that the City and the seven individual plaintiffs have shown that the captain and senior-captain exams violate Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) permits a disparate impact challenge to company-wide employment practices without proof of discriminatory intent.

McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. · filed 2012-02-24(k)(1)(A)(i)

But in a disparate impact case the presence or absence of discriminatory intent is ir- relevant; and permitting brokers to form their own teams and prescribing criteria for account distributions that favor the already successful—those who may owe their success to having been invited to join a successful or promising team—are practices of Merrill Lynch, rather than practices that local managers can choose or not at their whim.

When an employee shows that a test has a disparate impact, the employer bears the burden of showing legitimate, job-related reasons for denying that individual the claimed benefits.

Gulino v. Board of Education of the City School District · filed 2012-12-05(k)(1)(A)(i)

Under Title VII, once an employee shows that a particular test has a disparate impact, the burden shifts to the employer to show that it had legitimate, job-related reasons for denying a particular individual the benefits claimed.

Section 2000e-2(k) permits an individual disparate impact claim based on a discretionary promotion process; when no objective criteria define who is qualified, statistical evidence need not be limited to a qualified subgroup.

Tabor v. Hilti, Inc. · filed 2013-01-15(k)

In short, the district court erred in requiring Ms. Tabor to identify a subgroup of “qualified” employees at Hilti when no such subgroup existed. ... We conclude that Ms. Tabor has stated a prima facie disparate impact claim and we remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to identify a facially neutral employment practice, show a statistically significant disparity, and connect the practice to that disparity.

Bryant v. Johnny Kynard Logging, Inc. · filed 2013-03-08(k)

Bryant has failed to establish that Defendants’ subjective exercise of discretion in deciding which employees received health insurance has caused a statistically significant disparate impact on black employees.

A disparate impact claim requires evidence that a particular employment practice caused the alleged disparity.

Caldwell v. University of Houston System · filed 2013-04-05(k)(1)(A)(i)

While the University disputes these allegations, even if they are true, Caldwell presents no evidence or analysis to demonstrate how the University’s failure to follow its own job reclassification procedures has caused this alleged disparate impact on black female employees. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(i) (requiring proof of “a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race” (emphasis added)); see also Gonzales, 176 F.3d at 839 n.26. As Caldwell has provided no such evidence or even attempted to explain this causal link, the district court properly granted summary judgment on her disparate impact claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(2) protects an employer’s own employees and applicants from disparate impact; an employee of another company cannot sue the employer under an interference theory.

Mays v. BNSF Railway Co. · filed 2013-09-09(a)(2)

The text leaves no room for subsection (a)(2) to allow, as subsection (a)(1) has been read to allow, suits to be brought by persons other than the employer’s employees and applicants.

A disparate-impact plaintiff must identify the specific employment practice being challenged in the complaint.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peoplemark, Inc. · filed 2013-10-07(a)

A party alleging a disparate-impact theory must allege a specific employment practice in the complaint.

A disparate impact gender discrimination claim requires a facially neutral employment practice.

McNeil v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. · filed 2013-11-06(k)(1)(A)(i)

Therefore, Greyhound’s grooming policy is not facially neutral with respect to gender, and he cannot plausibly state a disparate impact gender discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(k) permits disparate-impact claims based on employment practices that are not facially neutral.

Adams v. City of Indianapolis · filed 2014-02-04(k)

Disparate-impact claims may be based on any employment policy, not just a facially neutral policy.

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of disparate impact with competent evidence of statistical significance without separately proving practical significance.

Jones v. City of Boston · filed 2014-05-07(k)(1)(A)(i)

We therefore conclude that a plaintiff's failure to demonstrate practical significance cannot preclude that plaintiff from relying on competent evidence of statistical significance to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact.

A facially neutral employment policy can support a Title VII disparate impact claim when it plausibly causes a significant disparity in promotion opportunities.

Barrett v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2014-08-14(k)(1)(A)(i)

At this stage of the litigation, however, Plaintiffs have made out a plausible claim that this policy has a disparate impact with respect to promotions.

A disparate impact claim compares how a challenged employment practice affects protected employees and other employees, rather than the protected group’s share of the entire workforce.

Muhammad v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2014-09-30(k)(1)(A)(i)

What percentage of its employees belong to plaintiffs protected class is not relevant to the inquiry. Rather, as explained above, the relevant comparison is between members of plaintiffs protected group (100% of whom were transferred to the bus depot on account of the headwear policy) and others (0% of whom were transferred to the bus depot on account of the headwear policy). That statistical disparity is significant.

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate impact plaintiff to identify an employment practice that causes a disparity based on a protected characteristic.

Houser v. Pritzker · filed 2014-10-02(k)(1)(A)(i)

To establish a prima facie case under a “disparate impact” theory of liability, Title VII plaintiffs first must show that their employer uses “a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(l)(A)(i).

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate impact plaintiff to identify a facially neutral employment policy that disproportionately affects a protected class.

McGee-Hudson v. AT&T · filed 2014-10-10(k)

To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, a plaintiff must demonstrate “(1) a facially neutral policy; (2) that, in fact, has a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class.” Id. at 792.

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to identify a specific employment practice causing a disparity and show that the practice injured the plaintiff.

Welch v. Eli Lilly & Co. · filed 2014-12-01

A plaintiff who was not injured by a challenged employment practice — even an objectionable practice — has no ground to complain, whether the theory be disparate impact or any other.

A disparate-impact claim must plead facts showing that a neutral practice selects applicants in a pattern significantly different from the relevant applicant pool.

Pouyeh v. University of Alabama/Department of Ophthalmology · filed 2014-11-05(k)(1)(A)(i)

Dr. Pouyeh has failed to plead facts, that, if true, would show UAB’s policy or practice operates to exclude members of a protected group by selecting applicants for hire in a pattern significantly different from that of the pool of applicants; he has pled no facts regarding the pool of applicants or pool of persons who considered applying but were barred from eligibility.

A specific employment practice supporting a disparate impact claim can consist of affirmative acts or inaction.

Quinton Brown v. Nucor Corporation · filed 2015-05-11(k)

A specific employment practice or policy can comprise affirmative acts or inaction.

Section 2000e-2(k) addresses disparate impact from a facially neutral employment practice that disproportionately affects a protected class.

Bartlette v. Hyatt Regency · filed 2016-09-25(k)

Bartlette alleges in his EEOC charge that Hyatt treated him worse than others because of his protected status. He does not allege, or even imply, that Hyatt maintained facially neutral policies that disproportionately impacted employees based on protected status. Therefore, as regards his disparate impact claims, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies, and the court will grant Hyatt’s motion to dismiss those claims.

A disparate impact plaintiff must produce statistical evidence showing that a specific employment practice caused a disparity affecting a protected group.

Latson v. Sessions · filed 2017-03-09(k)(1)(A)(i)

Simply put, to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, the plaintiff must produce statistical evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine that the Bureau’s utilized hiring policy caused the statistical disparity in question.

A disparate impact plaintiff must identify an employment practice that causes a significant adverse impact on a protected group.

Arndt v. City of Colorado Springs · filed 2017-07-12(k)(1)(A)(i)

A plaintiff claiming disparate impact discrimination must establish'that an identifiable employment practice or policy causes a significant disparate impact on a protected group. ... Plaintiffs have identified a specific employment practice. ... Evidence presented at trial supports the conclusion that the PAT disparately impacts women.

An employer must show that a promotion exam with a disparate impact is sufficiently job related and consistent with business necessity to justify its use for ranking candidates.

Smith v. City of Boston · filed 2017-07-26(k)(1)(A)(i)

The Court then assessed prong 2 of the disparate impact framework: job-relatedness and consistency with business necessity. ... Thus, the Court held that Boston did not meet its burden on prong 2 of the disparate impact inquiry, and'the Plaintiffs won the case. ... The Court concludes that none "of Boston’s arguments have merit and upholds the original decision in Smith.

Section 2000e-2(k) does not exempt an individual employee from a generally applicable requirement with a clear business justification.

Abebe v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. · filed 2018-02-12(k)(1)(A)(i)

The disparate-impact doctrine of 42 U.S.C. §2000e–2(k) and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975), deals with employment practices such as tests, and then on- ly if the requirement is not “job related” (§2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(i)); it is not a means by which particular employees can claim immunity from generally applicable require- ments whose business justification is easy to see.

Section 2000e-2(a) prohibits sex-based hiring and employment practices that limit workers’ opportunities; a practice with a disparate impact may require a job-related justification.

State v. Horning Bros., LLC · filed 2018-09-11(a)

The Court agrees with the State and finds that it shows a dispute of material fact as to whether Defendants only employing women as seasonal workers where all of the full-time positions are held by men has a disparate impact on the basis of sex. There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendants can establish whether it is a job related practice or merely stereotyping. The Court finds that Defendants fail to justify the alleged discriminatory hiring and gender separate employment practices. The Court then denies Defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims.

A disparate impact claim must identify a specific employment practice that caused the alleged disparity.

Porter v. Pipefitters Association · filed 2018-07-25(k)(1)(A)(i)

The Court agrees with Local 597: Plaintiffs have not pointed to a particular aspect or practice contained within the Hiring Hall and Referral Hall policies that has led to the disparity and thus have not met the requisite level of specificity to satisfy this element.

A disparate impact complaint can proceed when it identifies a facially neutral hiring policy and plausibly alleges that the policy disproportionately affects a protected group.

Smith v. Home Health Solutions, Inc. · filed 2018-10-24(k)

Plaintiff met her burden of alleging a facially-neutral employment policy that has a disparate impact. She is now entitled to discovery.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i) allows a decisionmaking process to be analyzed as one employment practice when its elements cannot be separated for disparate impact analysis.

Gamble v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc. · filed 2018-12-18(k)(1)(B)(i)

However, identification of a specific employment practice is not required in all instances: "if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent's decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment practice."

A Title VII disparate impact claim ordinarily requires statistical evidence of a significant disparity, unless the facts make the disparity obvious.

Luceus v. State of Rhode Island · filed 2019-05-08(k)

In sum, based on the record, we conclude that this is not a case in which Luceus can show a disparate impact in the absence of statistical and statistically significant evidence.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to show a causal connection between the challenged employment practice and the alleged disparity.

Figueroa v. Pompeo · filed 2019-05-10(k)(1)(A)(i)

To make a prima facie case, the plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence “demonstrating a causal connection” between the policy and the disparate impact. ... Because no genuine issue of material fact exists and Figueroa fails to establish causation as a matter of law, the Secretary is entitled to summary judgment on the disparate impact claim.

A disparate impact claim requires evidence that a particular employment practice caused a disparity affecting a protected group; the statistical evidence must be sufficient to establish that connection.

Downing v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2019-09-05(k)(1)(A)(i)

Under Title VII’s disparate impact provision, a plaintiff establishes a prima facie violation by showing that an employer uses a particular employment practice that (needlessly, though not necessarily intentionally) causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(k)(1)(A)(i); Richardson v. Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's Med. Ctr., 63 Fed. Appx. 886, 889 (7th Cir. 2003). To do so, plaintiffs must provide statistical evidence “of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question” caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group. Watson, 487 U.S. 977 at 994. Downing does not meet this burden.

A Title VII disparate impact claim requires statistical evidence that a specific employment practice caused a significant disparity affecting a protected group.

Menoken v. Weichert · filed 2019-09-16(a)(1)

Since plaintiff has not presented any evidence of a statistical disparity to support causation in her disparate impact discrimination claim, no reasonable juror could find for plaintiff, and defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this count.

A disparate impact claim requires a specific employment practice that causes a disproportionate effect on a protected class.

Bumpass v. Verizon Wireless · filed 2019-09-27(k)(1)(A)(i)

In response to that motion, Ms. Bumpass has not identified any specific employment policy or practice for analysis, and she has not provided any record evidence of statistical disparities resulting from a specific employment practice by Verizon.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact claim to identify an employment practice that causes a significant adverse effect on a protected class.

Sanders-Hollis v. State of CA, Health and Human Services Agency, Dept. of Social Services · filed 2019-09-20(k)(1)(A)(i)

“A claim of disparate impact challenges ‘employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.’” Stout v. Potter, 276 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335 n.15 (1977); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i)). ... Because plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded the elements of a disparate treatment or disparate impact claim, her discrimination claim under Title VII must be dismissed.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1) allows a race-based disparate-impact claim when the plaintiff plausibly alleges an employment practice that causes a racial disparity.

Washington v. Milwaukee County · filed 2020-01-14(k)(1)

To state a race-based disparate-impact claim, as Washington appears to intend, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that the defendant has established an employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race. ... These allegations state a claim for ongoing disparate-impact discrimination without any need for consideration of the 2012 or 2015 incidents.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact claimant to identify a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact based on a protected trait.

Gill v. Suburban Cadillac of Lansing, LLC · filed 2020-01-14(k)(1)(A)(i)

Plaintiff has failed even to identify an employment practice that had a disparate impact on her because of her race; much less has she offered evidence to support such a claim.

A disparate impact claim requires facts linking a facially neutral employment practice to a discriminatory result; allegations that managers departed from a neutral pay policy to favor men describe disparate treatment.

Medeiros v. Wal-Mart, Inc. · filed 2020-01-22(k)(1)(A)

If Walmart had compensation formulas for hourly and managerial employees designed to make compensation fair, but managers either ignored the policies or deviated from them to pay men more than women, it is not the neutral policies that are to blame. Rather, the managers have ignored the policies and treated female employees differently from male employees and thus, plaintiffs have stated a claim for disparate treatment, rather than disparate impact, with regard to compensation.

A disparate impact claim requires the plaintiff to identify a specific employment practice that causes a disparate impact on a protected group.

Olavarria v. State of North Carolina · filed 2020-04-16(k)(1)(A)(i)

In other words, a plaintiff must first identify a particular employment practice that, although facially neutral, causes a disparate impact on a protected group. ... Olavarria fails to identify a specific employment practice that caused a disparate impact to a protected class.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i) permits an inseparable decisionmaking process to be analyzed as one employment practice, and a plaintiff need not establish inseparability before discovery.

Tolton v. Jones Day · filed 2020-05-19(k)(1)(B)(i)

First, the particularity requirement admits of an exception; “if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i). Nothing in Title VII suggests that a plaintiff must make that showing at the pleading stage, without the benefit of discovery.

A disparate-impact plaintiff must identify the particular employment practice challenged.

SCHWARZ v. PULASKI STATE PRISON · filed 2020-07-10(k)(1)(A)(i)

However, Schwarz fails to point to a particular pattern or practice he alleges is discriminatory.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to show that a particular employment practice causes an adverse impact based on a protected characteristic.

Collette v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital · filed 2001-02-26(k)(1)(A)(i)

codified the plaintiff’s prima facie burden of proof in disparate impact cases as requiring a "demonslral[ion] that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

A disparate impact claim under § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires the plaintiff to identify a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact.

Byrd-Hedgepeth v. Capital One Financial · filed 2020-09-30(k)(1)(A)(i)

Because Hedgepeth does not identify any discriminatory practice utilized by Capital One, the Court will treat Count I as solely alleging a claim of disparate treatment under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(h) protects a production-based compensation system itself from a disparate-impact challenge but permits a challenge to the policies that supply its inputs.

Bland v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. · filed 2020-11-30(h)

Slaton-Young is correct, as this Court finds that § 2000e-2(h) simply acts to insulate the compensation system itself from attack. Indeed, the McReynolds court expressly recognized that a challenge to the “disparate impact of the underlying policies that provide the ‘inputs’” for compensation would be cognizable.

A Title VII disparate impact claim requires relevant statistical analysis showing that a specific employment practice adversely affects a protected group.

Roach v. Montgomery County Government · filed 2020-12-08

To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must (1) identify a “specific employment practice to be challenged”; and (2) “prove[] that the challenged practice has an adverse impact on a protected group” through the use of “relevant statistical analysis.”

A plaintiff can plead a Title VII disparate impact claim by alleging that a facially neutral employment policy disproportionately affects pregnant workers, without including statistical data in the complaint.

Hall v. Dolgencorp LLC · filed 2020-12-16

It is sufficient that Hall alleged that a facially neutral policy has a disproportionate impact on a protected class, which she has done. Accordingly, Hall has stated an individual disparate impact claim, and Dollar General’s motion is due to be denied.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact; ignoring a neutral policy to discriminate intentionally does not support that theory.

Studders, DMD v. Geisinger Medical Center · filed 2021-02-11(k)(1)(A)(i)

She is claiming that they misapplied, or more accurately, ignored their own policies and chose to discriminate against her. This is, definitionally, intentional discrimination and cannot be pled through a theory of disparate impact.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact claimant to identify a specific employment practice and allege how it disproportionately affects a racial group.

Harrison v. Wells Fargo Bank · filed 2021-03-09(k)(1)(A)(i)

Without identifying a specific policy that Wells Fargo employs or how it disproportionately affects specified groups, Harrison cannot state a claim for disparate impact under Title VII, the ADA, or ADEA.

A disparate impact plaintiff must provide statistical evidence showing that a specific employment practice adversely affects a protected group.

Rice v. City Of Cincinnati · filed 2021-05-07(k)(1)(A)(i)

The Court thus concludes that Rice has failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires evidence that a particular employment practice causes a disparate impact; allegations of a disproportionate effect alone are insufficient.

REESE v. SOURCE 4 TEACHERS · filed 2021-09-29(k)(1)(A)(i)

Allegations of a disproportionate effect alone are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination.

A disparate impact plaintiff must show an available, equally valid, less discriminatory practice that the employer refused to use.

Chicago Teachers Union, Local v. Board of Education of the City · filed 2021-09-22(k)(1)(A)(ii)

Thus, the district court correctly concluded that CTU did not carry its burden of establishing an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative ... the Board could have used in lieu of layoffs based on enrollment numbers.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i) requires each challenged employment practice to be assessed separately for disparate impact unless the parts of a decisionmaking process cannot be separated for analysis.

ANDREWS v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA · filed 2021-10-04(k)(1)(B)(i)

The practices Andrews identifies are capable of separation and therefore cannot be combined for purposes of the analysis.

A facially neutral employment practice can support a disparate-impact claim without proof of discriminatory intent.

United States v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania · filed 2021-12-31(k)(1)(A)(i)

The facial neutrality of the Readiness Tests and PSP’s lack of discriminatory intent therefore have no bearing on the substance of the United States’ underlying Title VII claim, and the objections will be overruled.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) permits disparate impact liability when an employment practice causes racial discrimination and is not justified by business necessity.

Simpson v. Dart · filed 2022-01-06(k)(1)(A)(i)

A Title VII plaintiff can estab- lish liability on a disparate impact theory by pointing to an employment policy that “causes racial discrimination” and “is not justified by business necessity.”

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires an employer to establish business necessity for a challenged practice after employees make a prima facie showing of disparate impact.

Lopez v. Mountain View Care and Rehabilitation Center, LLC · filed 2022-01-21(k)(1)(A)(i)

Therefore, Defendant has failed to establish a business necessity for the policy at issue in this Summary Judgment motion.

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to show that a challenged employment practice caused a significant disparity.

KENNEDY v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2022-03-01(k)(1)(A)(i)

First, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that the application of the challenged practice has caused a “significant” pattern of discrimination. ... Given the small sample size, however, an odds ratio of 1.65 is not statistically significant.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a plaintiff to show that a particular employment practice causes a disparate impact on a protected group.

Heckstall v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority · filed 2022-03-28(k)(1)(A)(i)

Pinkston-Shay and Heckstall have failed to adduce evidence that MTA’s promotional test policy causes a disparate impact.

A disparate impact plaintiff must show a significant statistical disparity caused by the challenged employment practice; raw percentages generally require statistical analysis to establish that link.

Green v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2022-04-20(a)(2)

Green has identified an employment practice—the use of hair tests to screen for drug use—but has failed to offer anything more than raw statistical data to prove that this practice has caused a disparate impact in the rates of positive tests for African American officers. The statistics Green proffered indicate that .038% of African American officers, .008% of Caucasian officers, and 1% of officers identifying as “other” had positive test results. These numbers reveal nothing about the rate of false positives and do not show a disparate impact without further statistical analysis using accepted measures of statistical significance.

A plaintiff may analyze a decisionmaking process as one employment practice only if its elements cannot be separated for analysis.

Okeke v. Admin of Tulane Educ Fund · filed 2022-04-06(k)(1)(B)(i)

For that position, she cites Title VII’s directive that “if the complaining party can demonstrate to the court that the elements of a respondent’s decisionmaking process are not capable of separation for analysis, the decisionmaking process may be analyzed as one employment practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i). In her view, then, she need only assert that the scheduling process overall has had a disparate impact. We disagree. Dr. Okeke has not demonstrated that elements of Tulane’s scheduling process “are not capable of separation for analysis.”

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to show that a particular employment practice caused the alleged racial disparity; an unexplained imbalance in a small number of promotions does not establish causation.

Daniels v. Traditional Logistics and Cartage, LLC · filed 2022-05-05(k)(1)(A)(i)

Plaintiff cannot show the challenged policy or practice (Defendants’ failure to utilize a documented system or standard or application system for Casual Drivers to apply) for selecting which Casual Drivers to promote to Full-Time causes a disparate impact on black Casual Drivers.

A disparate impact plaintiff who loses an equal opportunity to compete need not prove the employer would have hired them.

Simpson v. Cook County Sheriff's Office · filed 2022-08-08(k)(1)(A)(i)

As such, plaintiffs need not prove that defendants would have hired them as defendants suggest.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to show an adverse impact on a protected group; a group too small for a valid statistical comparison cannot support a prima facie claim.

Jacinta Downing v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2022-09-12(k)

A plaintiff cannot make a prima facie case of adverse impact where the affected group is “too small for any valid statistical comparisons,” which “immunize[s] most single de- cisions from disparate impact challenges.”

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) addresses disparate impact from a specific, facially neutral employment practice that substantially harms a protected group and cannot be justified by a legitimate business goal.

MACLEAN v. WIPRO LIMITED · filed 2022-09-29(k)(1)(A)(i)

Under Title VII, a disparate impact violation arises when an employer is shown to have used a specific employment practice, neutral on its face, but causing a substantial adverse impact on a protected group and which cannot be justified as serving a legitimate business goal of the employer.

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate impact claim against a union to identify a specific practice or policy that causes a disparity for a protected group.

Jones v. Local 798 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of t · filed 2022-12-05(k)(1)(A)(i)

Jones pleads that union stewards did not act on his claims, Compl. ¶ 119, but he does not plead that Local 798 had a practice or policy of not pursuing the rights of minorities under the CBA.

A disparate impact claim must plausibly identify a facially neutral employment practice that adversely affects a protected class; acts directed only at the plaintiff are insufficient.

Domino v. California Correctional Health Care Services · filed 2022-12-12(k)(1)(A)(i)

Plaintiff does not provide any factual allegations to sufficiently plead an adverse effect on a protected class. The entirety of Plaintiff’s allegations consists of acts directed solely at her. ... Thus, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible disparate impact claim.

A disparate-impact plaintiff must identify the specific employment practice responsible for a disparity unless the elements of the decisionmaking process cannot be separated for analysis.

Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York · filed 2022-11-22(k)(1)(B)(i)

Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs may not point to the promotional process generally as the basis for their disparate impact.

Section 2000e-2(a)(2) requires a disparate impact claim to identify a specific, facially neutral employment practice that adversely affects a protected group.

Kurdi v. California Department of Transportation · filed 2023-01-18(a)(2)

First, Plaintiff does not identify the specific practice or policy she is challenging or allege that the policy is facially neutral. ... Because the complaint is devoid of any factual support that Caltrans’ policies or practices had an adverse effect on a protected class, such as women or Arab-Muslims generally, Kurdi fails to state a claim for disparate impact under Title VII.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) does not require statistics to plead religious disparate impact when the impact is obvious.

Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller · filed 2023-04-03(k)(1)(A)(i)

This is precisely the sort of obvious impact that a plaintiff need not support with statistics to plead a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires an employee bringing a disparate impact claim to identify a facially neutral employment practice with an adverse impact.

Younker v. City of Wood River, Illinois · filed 2023-05-04(k)

As the statutory text suggests, the employee has the initial burden to show a facially neutral policy has an adverse impact, then the burden shifts to the defendant to show the policy is related to the employee’s job and a business necessity. ... Wood River asks the Court to dismiss Younker’s Title VII disparate impact claim because Younker has not pointed to any facially neutral policy of Wood River that had a disparate impact. Indeed, in her response brief, Younker asks that her disparate impact claim be dismissed. The Court construes this as an admission that her claim has no merit and will, accordingly, grant Wood River summary judgment on any such claims.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to identify a specific employment practice and plausibly connect it to a disparity affecting a protected class.

Brown v. Wolf · filed 2023-05-08(k)

For these reasons, Brown has not alleged that Defendant’s policy for promotions has a disparate impact on protected classes to which she belongs, so she has failed to state a claim for disparate impact.

A disparate impact claim under Title VII must identify an employment practice that causes a significant disparity for a protected group.

Jones v. Local 798 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of t · filed 2023-05-25(k)(1)(A)(i)

Jones has not attempted to identify any statistical disparity resulting from Local 798’s discriminatory policy, which is required for a disparate impact claim.

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate impact claim to identify a facially neutral employment policy; allegations that a policy was used to favor a group instead sound in disparate treatment.

KATZ v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD. · filed 2023-08-10(k)

TCS’s benching, hiring, and termination policies to maximize visa-holders, who Katz alleges are “almost exclusively South Asian,” followed by TCS prioritizing those visa-holders for TCS positions, are not facially neutral policies because Katz, like MacLean, alleges TCS implements these policies to further a preference for South Asians and Indians.

A disparate impact claim can survive dismissal when alleged facts plausibly show that a facially neutral employment practice disproportionately harms a protected group.

RIGHTEOUS v. OVERBROOK SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND · filed 2023-07-26(k)(1)(A)(i)

While Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ statistical evidence is too thin to support a case of disparate impact discrimination, Plaintiffs have, at the pleading stage, alleged sufficient facts to allow for further discovery on this fact-intensive issue.

Section 2000e-2(k) requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to show that a challenged employment practice caused the disparity.

Hernandez v. Commissioner of Baseball · filed 2023-08-15(k)

In other words, the plaintiff must show that the criteria the employer uses—even if facially neutral—create or perpetuate discrimination.

Section 2000e-2 requires a disparate impact plaintiff to show a significant statistical disparity caused by a challenged employment practice; one applicant’s experience and general assertions do not suffice.

Irwin Delay v. Dollar Energy Fund · filed 2023-10-20(k)(1)(A)(i)

Neither his experience alone nor his general argument that the consideration of criminal convictions has a disparate racial effect is enough to show that a Dollar Energy Fund practice or policy causes a disparate impact. Without “statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question has caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group,” Watson, 487 U.S. at 994, his disparate-impact claim could not proceed.

A disparate impact claim can survive dismissal without alleging the exact statistical disparity if the complaint sufficiently alleges a neutral employment practice that disproportionately affects a protected group.

WALDEN v. RAIMONDO · filed 2024-02-14(k)

Thus, the Court does not find convincing Raimondo’s argument that Walden has failed to state a claim because he did not allege the exact statistical disparity.

A Title VII disparate-impact claim cannot define a protected religious group solely by a particular belief that other members of the same faith may not share.

Cox v. Northwest Regional Education Service District · filed 2024-02-23

But parties cannot establish a prima facie disparate impact claim by defining the group as comprised of religious individuals holding a particular belief they attribute to their religion even if other members of that individual’s faith or religious group believe otherwise.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate-impact claim to plausibly connect an identified employment practice to the alleged adverse effect.

Mwantuali v. Hamilton College · filed 2024-03-20(k)(1)(A)(i)

However, Plaintiff has failed to set forth enough factual allegations to plausibly support the claim that his office relocation, revoked supervisory authority, or his denied extension request, were causally related to any specific employment policy or practice of handling complaints.

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate-impact plaintiff to identify a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact based on a protected trait.

Saas v. Major, Lindsey & Africa, LLC · filed 2024-05-10(k)(1)(A)(i)

Plaintiff’s claim fails here because it is entirely speculative. Plaintiff has not identified a particular employment practice that exists.

A religious disparate-impact claim requires evidence that a challenged employment practice significantly affects a protected group.

Brown v. Alaska Airlines Inc · filed 2024-05-22(k)(1)(A)(i)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Alaska has or enforces policies or practices that create a “significant disparate impact” on a protected group.

Section 2000e-2(a)(2) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to plausibly allege that an employment practice adversely affected employment opportunities or employee status because of a protected characteristic.

Feds for Medical Freedom v. Austin · filed 2024-06-10(a)(2)

The Plaintiffs have failed to allege that the DoD’s vaccination-or-exemption policy caused them to be deprived of employment opportunities or that it “adversely affected [their] status as [employees].” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2).

Section 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) requires a disparate impact plaintiff to identify an employment practice and show that it causes a racial disparity.

Savage v. City of Springfield · filed 2024-06-03(k)(1)(A)(i)

To make a prima facie showing of disparate impact, a plaintiff must isolate and identify a challenged employment practice and “then show that the identified practice ‘causes a disparate impact on the basis of race.’”