Zone1 The Doctrine of Disparate Impact

You're absolutely right and the most telling thing about the CRA of 1964 cases, including Title VII & Section 1981 which prohibit race based discrimination in employment and contracts, generally the only plaintiffs that make any headway at all are not Black.

Part of the post-Civil War Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981 was initially passed to provide newly freed slaves and their descendants with the right to make and enforce contracts. Section 1981 guarantees those rights; however, if they are denied, individuals can bring a discrimination claim.​
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Section 1981)​
A federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and ethnicity when making and enforcing contracts. Section 1981 specifically grants all individuals within the US jurisdiction the same rights and benefits as "enjoyed by white citizens" regarding contractual relationships (42 U.S.C. § 1981(a)). Courts have interpreted Section 1981 to apply to the employment context, including at-will employment and the independent contractor relationship. Section 1981 also prohibits retaliation. It does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of any other protected class.​

Section 1981 applies to all private employers and labor organizations, but does not apply to discrimination by the US federal government as an employer. It also does not apply to state or local government employers.​
Section 1981 does not require an individual to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge before any government agency and waiting for that charge to be adjudicated or released before proceeding to court.​
There is no damages cap under Section 1981.​


Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII – equal employment opportunity

See also: Bennett Amendment, United States labor law, and Employment discrimination law in the United States

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of Title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[70]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of their association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[71] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (see Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[72] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
Read the UNC-Harvard decision from last year.
 
Im white and anti-white discrimination has kept me out of any decent job. 1984, my ship came in I was getting hired by the IRS as a computer technician by a guy that liked my work. The building was 99.9999% black workers in Detroit and when they heard a whiteboy was getting hired, they threatened to go on Strike if I got hired. They killed my employment and my friend got transferred to another building.

Got discriminated in Medical school,,,,,,Sorry but YOU LACK DIVERSITY BOOM OUT.

Grad program in Nutrition,,,,,,White cxnt admissions officer only hires non-whites BUT THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR GAVE ME ADMISSIONS ; He was AFRICAN and knew how white men are being discriminated in the USA. He told me that the Super wealthy White families are blaming poor working class whites for the crimes of the white elite.

Its amazing the insight foreigners have about conditions in the USA.
Bullshit, I was young and had no idea about discrimination and what was happening.
 
I think the problem with affirmative action is that at the end of the day it isn't colorblind, and you simply can't be doing that sort of thing anymore.
Actually it is colorbind, the problem is that whites, primarily on the right have a zero sum mentality and it's based on white entitlement. Whites are not entitled to everything and just because a person of color is hired or admitted it doesn't mean a white person loses a place.
 
That's a lie. Its time you guys stopped telling it. You could have sued for racial discrimination if that happened. You didn't get discriminated against in medical school. You would never be told that you weren't accepted becuse you're white. It looks like the medical school was majority white with a historical pattern of underutilizing minorities meaning they were not admitting them, meaning that school was practicing racial discrimination against non whites instead of you. Apparently you got one of those Africans who got a cushy job and decided to think he was white who knew nothing about anti discrimination law. There is no anti white discrimintion based on the Doctrine of Disparate Impact.
I hate to tell you this, but whites can't functionally report discrimination against themselves. Tiem after time I've seen clear examples of favoritism due to race or sex and in every case the EEOC refused to even take a report.
 
Actually it is colorbind, the problem is that whites, primarily on the right have a zero sum mentality and it's based on white entitlement. Whites are not entitled to everything and just because a person of color is hired or admitted it doesn't mean a white person loses a place.
Colorblindness is actually zero-sum. Now, of course, we could do away with colorblindness, if you'd like.
 
This may be just semantics, but "disparate impact" is not a DOCTRINE. It is merely a factor to be considered when reviewing situations where the demographics of a particular phenomenon do not match the demographics of the overall population. At that point, one wants to look at the criteria for selection to see if they are demographically neutral, and to take corrective actions if those criteria are biased.

An easy example would be the demographic composition of NHL players, very few of whom are Black, although there is no apparent reason why Blacks could not compete for those roster spots. Are NHL teams discriminating against aspiring Black hockey players? But there are a number of reasons to explain why there are very few Blacks who get into hockey, so it's not racial discrimination that keeps them out.

The "disparate impact" that impacts Asians applying to Harvard is reflected in the quantitative criteria that that school employs in selecting its incoming Freshmen. If the quantitative criteria were used ALONE, Asians would comprise a far higher percentage of those selected. Harvard does not dispute this fact. Because of the demonstrable disparate impact, one must look closer at the selection process, and doing so reveals a process that favors other ethnic groups to the disadvantage of Asians. Asians are not discriminated against, but so many others receive beneficial discrimination that it acts to the detriments of worthy Asian applicants.

But who wants to go to college with a bunch of Asians who will, by comparison, make you look bad?
 
And here we see the example of a dumb white person. The NBA is a bunch of corporations and the players on the floor are not the only employees. The Commissioner of the NBA has always been white and never played pro basketball. Therefore that person is actually not qualified to run a basketbal league. Yet he remains commissioner over blacks who played the game and know the complete detail of the basketball business.

If there are only 10 spots available for a given program, how is that not a zero sum situation?
 
I think the problem with affirmative action is that at the end of the day it isn't colorblind, and you simply can't be doing that sort of thing anymore.
Affirmative Action IS colorblind.
 
Folks, this thread is in CDZ. That means no flaming, no trolling and stay on topic which is discrimination /affirmative action.

The topic is not crime rates, nuclear families etc…
 
Well...guess we won't be debating it as it has been completely censored. It is the Democrat way.

Have a good night. I won't be participating in the censored zone again.
You weren't addressing the topic. What you said has NOTHING to do with anything.

Explain this testimony from flash:

“I can say for sure that happens because I did it. Before retirement, I was an Engineer. For the last 20 years of my career, I was a Manager and Director and I hired hundreds of people. I reviewed well over a thousand resumes for all kinds of positions. Everything from Secretaries to Engineering Managers. Both Salary and Hourly. I always culled out the resumes with Black Ethnic names. Never shortlisted anybody with a Black Ethnic name. Never hired them.”

Since the Fortune 50 company I worked for had a stupid “affirmative action” hiring policies I never mentioned it to anybody and I always got away with it. A couple of times I was instructed to improve my departmental “diversity” demographics but I always ignored it and never got into any trouble. My stereotype is that anybody with a stupid ghetto Black ethnic name is probably worthless. I could have been wrong a couple of times but I was also probably right 99% of the time.

Glad I did it. I would do it again.”


Explain this:

Payscale did a two-year study from 2017 to 2019, and this is their conclusion: “We find equal pay for equal work is still not a reality.” They studied the earnings of white men and men of color using data from 1.8 million employees. They found that no matter how far they advanced, black men made less than white men with the same qualifications.28
According to the study, “black men were the only racial/ethnic group not achieving pay parity with white men at some level.”

These two examples have NOTHING to do with the things you cited. And there are more.
 
You weren't addressing the topic. What you said has NOTHING to do with anything.

Explain this testimony from flash:

“I can say for sure that happens because I did it. Before retirement, I was an Engineer. For the last 20 years of my career, I was a Manager and Director and I hired hundreds of people. I reviewed well over a thousand resumes for all kinds of positions. Everything from Secretaries to Engineering Managers. Both Salary and Hourly. I always culled out the resumes with Black Ethnic names. Never shortlisted anybody with a Black Ethnic name. Never hired them.”

Since the Fortune 50 company I worked for had a stupid “affirmative action” hiring policies I never mentioned it to anybody and I always got away with it. A couple of times I was instructed to improve my departmental “diversity” demographics but I always ignored it and never got into any trouble. My stereotype is that anybody with a stupid ghetto Black ethnic name is probably worthless. I could have been wrong a couple of times but I was also probably right 99% of the time.

Glad I did it. I would do it again.”


Explain this:

Payscale did a two-year study from 2017 to 2019, and this is their conclusion: “We find equal pay for equal work is still not a reality.” They studied the earnings of white men and men of color using data from 1.8 million employees. They found that no matter how far they advanced, black men made less than white men with the same qualifications.28
According to the study, “black men were the only racial/ethnic group not achieving pay parity with white men at some level.”

These two examples have NOTHING to do with the things you cited. And there are more.

One guy said he did something does not a system make.

And the fix is do the same thing to anyone not in a protected class?
 
Asians are six percent of the American population, but they were 25.9 percent of the students entering Harvard in 2021.
Thats based on merit rather than quotas for undeserving, aka less qualified, black people
 
This may be just semantics, but "disparate impact" is not a DOCTRINE. It is merely a factor to be considered when reviewing situations where the demographics of a particular phenomenon do not match the demographics of the overall population. At that point, one wants to look at the criteria for selection to see if they are demographically neutral, and to take corrective actions if those criteria are biased.

An easy example would be the demographic composition of NHL players, very few of whom are Black, although there is no apparent reason why Blacks could not compete for those roster spots. Are NHL teams discriminating against aspiring Black hockey players? But there are a number of reasons to explain why there are very few Blacks who get into hockey, so it's not racial discrimination that keeps them out.

The "disparate impact" that impacts Asians applying to Harvard is reflected in the quantitative criteria that that school employs in selecting its incoming Freshmen. If the quantitative criteria were used ALONE, Asians would comprise a far higher percentage of those selected. Harvard does not dispute this fact. Because of the demonstrable disparate impact, one must look closer at the selection process, and doing so reveals a process that favors other ethnic groups to the disadvantage of Asians. Asians are not discriminated against, but so many others receive beneficial discrimination that it acts to the detriments of worthy Asian applicants.

But who wants to go to college with a bunch of Asians who will, by comparison, make you look bad?
Try using a better analogy. The players on the feild or ice are not the only employees in sports corporations. Your opinion is not supported by the faxts.

Under SAT-Only Admissions, Asian American Applicants to Selective Colleges Would Gain Fewer than 3,000 Seats Out of 120,000, Georgetown University Report Finds
21% of Asian American students at the most selective colleges would not have been admitted under a test-only admissions policy

A new report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) finds no strong evidence of discrimination against Asian American applicants in admissions to highly selective colleges. Selective Bias: Asian Americans, Test Scores, and Holistic Admissions evaluates the common arguments made by affirmative action critics and Students for Fair Admissions, which is suing Harvard University and has lawsuits pending against the University of North Carolina and the University of Texas at Austin over their admissions practices.

Asian American applicants face lower acceptance rates at highly selective colleges compared to other racial and ethnic groups, but they are also much more likely to apply regardless of test scores. Even if standardized test scores were the only factor considered in admissions, the Asian American share of enrollment at selective colleges would increase by no more than 2 percentage points. The data do not support the claim that selective colleges adjust the number of Asian American students they admit to maintain a long-term racial balance of students.

“If we used test-based merit as the singular admissions requirement, the gain for Asian American applicants would be marginal,” CEW Director and lead author Anthony P. Carnevale said. “But on the flip side, 21% of Asian American applicants who were previously admitted would no longer qualify.”


 
Read the UNC-Harvard decision from last year.

So, to repeat: UNC’s program permits, but does not require, admissions officers to value both John’s and James’s love for their State, their high schools’ rigor, and whether either has overcome obstacles that are indicative of their “persistence of commitment.”93 It permits, but does not require, them to value John’s identity as a child of UNC alumni (or, perhaps, if things had turned out differently, as a first-generation White student from Appalachia whose family struggled to make ends meet during the Great Recession). And it permits, but does not require, them to value James’s race—not in the abstract, but as an element of who he is, no less than his love for his State, his high school courses, and the obstacles he has overcome.​
 
  • Winner
Reactions: IM2
This may be just semantics, but "disparate impact" is not a DOCTRINE. It is merely a factor to be considered when reviewing situations where the demographics of a particular phenomenon do not match the demographics of the overall population. At that point, one wants to look at the criteria for selection to see if they are demographically neutral, and to take corrective actions if those criteria are biased.

An easy example would be the demographic composition of NHL players, very few of whom are Black, although there is no apparent reason why Blacks could not compete for those roster spots. Are NHL teams discriminating against aspiring Black hockey players? But there are a number of reasons to explain why there are very few Blacks who get into hockey, so it's not racial discrimination that keeps them out.

The "disparate impact" that impacts Asians applying to Harvard is reflected in the quantitative criteria that that school employs in selecting its incoming Freshmen. If the quantitative criteria were used ALONE, Asians would comprise a far higher percentage of those selected. Harvard does not dispute this fact. Because of the demonstrable disparate impact, one must look closer at the selection process, and doing so reveals a process that favors other ethnic groups to the disadvantage of Asians. Asians are not discriminated against, but so many others receive beneficial discrimination that it acts to the detriments of worthy Asian applicants.

But who wants to go to college with a bunch of Asians who will, by comparison, make you look bad?
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), "disparate impact" is recognized as a legal doctrine. This doctrine addresses employment practices that, while neutral on their face, disproportionately affect members of a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC's Compliance Manual discusses this in Section 604, stating:

"Disparate impact analysis is aimed at 'practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.' It is another analytical tool for determining whether compensation discrimination has occurred."
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
This doctrine was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), which held that employment practices resulting in a disparate impact on protected groups are unlawful unless justified by business necessity.

Wikipedia

Therefore, the EEOC recognizes "disparate impact" as a doctrine used to assess the discriminatory effects of employment practices.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: IM2

Forum List

Back
Top