Law Office of Twila S. White
Call Us Today 800-521-4569 Discuss your case with an attorney
Effective Protection Of Employee Rights

Every employee has rights. If yours have been violated we can help you.

Disparate-impact discrimination cases

There are two basic types of illegal discrimination: intentional bias and "disparate impact" discrimination. The second type of discrimination can be intentional, but it need not be. It is a type of discrimination where unnecessary employment barriers are put in the way of certain classes of people.

A classic example of disparate impact discrimination is the "unnecessary height requirement." A police department, for example, might wish to require all officers to be at least six feet tall. Even if the intent were neutral, such a requirement could be discriminatory if it unduly burdened one class of worker over another and served no objective, job-based need. Indeed, employee height requirements have often been found to cause a disparate impact against women.

Unless there is something specific in the job that requires such tall workers, that disparate impact is unlawful. Moreover, even if there were an objective need for the requirement, it would still be considered discriminatory if there were an alternative practice that could meet that need without the disparate impact.

Gender discrimination throughout the company

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently obtained a $3.2-million settlement in a disparate impact case. It was brought against the railroad CSX Transportation (CSXT) and alleged company-wide gender discrimination.

The facts are strikingly similar to the police height example.

According to the EEOC, CSXT put several pointless barriers in the way of female job applicants. One was an isokinetic strength test called the "IPCS biodex" test, which was required of people seeking jobs as train conductors, clerks, material handlers and a number of other jobs. Other tests included a three-minute step test meant to measure the applicant's aerobic capacity and an arm endurance test.

Apparently, these tests were administered neutrally to all applicants, but they had a disparate impact on women. The EEOC did not allege that CSXT intentionally discriminated against women, but the company was unable to show that the tests were necessary to determine the applicants' ability to perform these jobs. Why would a potential clerk, for example, need to be tested for strength, aerobic capacity and endurance?

Women in 20 states were affected

The EEOC filed suit against CSXT and the company agreed to settle. As a result of that settlement, CSXT has agreed to pay $3.2 million into a settlement fund for affected women in 20 states.

CSXT has also signed a consent decree requiring it to cease using the specified physical tests in hiring and to hire expert consultants to scientifically study what, if any, physical tests are actually necessary for job applicants to pass. These tests must be narrowly tailored to limit the disparate impact against women and other classes of job applicants who might be affected.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
Email us for a Response

Contact The Firm

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Office Location:

Los Angeles Office (Main Office)
6033 West Century Boulevard
Suite 810
Los Angeles, CA 90045

Toll Free: 800-521-4569
Phone: 213-381-8749
Fax: 213-381-8799
Los Angeles Law Office Map

Santa Barbara Office
7 West Figueroa Street
Suite 200
Santa Barbara, California 93101

Toll Free: 877-278-6748
Fax: 877-284-5045
Map & Directions

Contact: