Disparate Impact

Definition

Disparate impact refers to a situation where a seemingly neutral policy or practice has a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected group, even if the policy was not intended to discriminate. It is a legal concept used to identify and address unintentional discrimination in the context of civil rights and equal protection under the law.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Disparate impact is a legal theory that allows plaintiffs to challenge policies or practices that are facially neutral but have a disproportionate adverse effect on protected groups, even without proof of discriminatory intent.
2. The Supreme Court has recognized disparate impact claims as a valid basis for proving unlawful discrimination under various civil rights statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act.
3. To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a specific policy or practice has a significant disparate impact on a protected group, such as a disproportionately high rejection rate for job applications or mortgage applications.
4. Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of disparate impact, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the policy or practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity, or in the case of housing, that the policy or practice is necessary to achieve a legitimate, nondiscriminatory objective.
5. If the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff can still prevail by showing that there is a less discriminatory alternative available that the defendant refuses to adopt.

Review Questions

• Explain how the concept of disparate impact is used to identify and address unintentional discrimination in the context of civil rights and equal protection.
  • The concept of disparate impact allows plaintiffs to challenge policies or practices that are neutral on their face but have a disproportionately adverse effect on protected groups, even in the absence of proof of discriminatory intent. This is important in the context of civil rights and equal protection because it recognizes that discrimination can occur unintentionally through seemingly neutral policies that nevertheless result in unequal outcomes for protected groups. By shifting the burden of proof to the defendant to justify the policy or practice, the disparate impact framework provides a means to identify and address these forms of unintentional discrimination and ensure that protected groups are afforded equal opportunities and protections under the law.
• Describe the process for establishing a prima facie case of disparate impact and the subsequent burden-shifting framework.
  • To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, the plaintiff must demonstrate that a specific policy or practice has a significant disparate impact on a protected group, such as a disproportionately high rejection rate for job applications or mortgage applications. Once the plaintiff has met this initial burden, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the policy or practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity, or in the case of housing, that the policy or practice is necessary to achieve a legitimate, nondiscriminatory objective. If the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff can still prevail by showing that there is a less discriminatory alternative available that the defendant refuses to adopt. This burden-shifting framework is a key aspect of the disparate impact legal theory, as it recognizes the difficulty in proving discriminatory intent and instead focuses on the actual outcomes and effects of the challenged policy or practice.
• Analyze the role of the Supreme Court in recognizing disparate impact claims as a valid basis for proving unlawful discrimination under various civil rights statutes, and discuss the significance of this legal precedent in promoting equal protection and addressing systemic discrimination.
  • The Supreme Court's recognition of disparate impact claims as a valid basis for proving unlawful discrimination under civil rights statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, has been a significant development in the legal framework for addressing discrimination. By allowing plaintiffs to challenge policies or practices that have a disproportionate adverse effect on protected groups, even without proof of discriminatory intent, the disparate impact doctrine has expanded the scope of civil rights protections and enabled the identification and remediation of systemic forms of discrimination. This legal precedent has been instrumental in promoting equal protection and addressing entrenched, structural barriers that may perpetuate inequalities, even when they are not the result of overt, intentional discrimination. The Supreme Court's endorsement of disparate impact claims has strengthened the legal tools available to challenge policies and practices that, while facially neutral, nevertheless have the effect of denying equal opportunities and protections to marginalized and disadvantaged groups in society.

Related terms

Protected Groups: Specific groups of people that are protected from discrimination by civil rights laws, such as race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, or sex.

Unintentional Discrimination: Discrimination that occurs as a result of policies or practices that appear neutral but have a disproportionate negative effect on protected groups, even without the intent to discriminate.

Burden of Proof: In a disparate impact case, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to justify the policy or practice that is causing the disparate impact, once the plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of the disparate impact.