Discriminatory effects

At the same time, these decisions do not mean that use of a smuggler profile is automatically acceptable, especially if the profile is poorly designed, has a discriminatory effect, or is applied mechanically and without regard for individual circumstances. 

Fig. 18.9. Fluorine-19 CPMAS spectra of PVDF (biaxially stretched film), showing the discriminatory effect of a precontact delay (with H spin-locking) following a 90° proton pulse, combined with the use of a short (100 /as) contact time, (a) Precontact delay zero, (b) Precontact delay 40 ms. The signal for amorphous domains does not appear in (b). The sample contains both a and crystallites. The signals from head-to-head units are also lost in (b) and, therefore, reside principally in amorphous regions. [Figure reproduced with permission from Ref. 72.]...

With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the remedies provided under the ADA were modified. Employment discrimination (whether intentional or by practice) that has a discriminatory effect on qualified individuals may include hiring, reinstatement, promotion, back pay, front pay, reasonable accommodation, or other actions that will make an individual whole. Payment of attorney fees, expert witness fees, and court fees is still permitted, and jury trials are also allowed. 

We concluded above that Johnson Controls policy is not neutral because it does not apply to the reproductive capacity of the company s male employees in the same way as it applies to that of the females. Moreover, the absence of a malevolent motive does 1204 not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. Whether an employment practice involves disparate treatment through explicit facial discrimination does not depend on why the employer discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the discrimination. In Martin Marietta, supra, the motives underlying the employers express exclusion of women did not alter the intentionally discriminatory character of the policy. Nor did the arguably benign motives lead to consideration of a business necessity defense. The question 200 in that case was whether the discrimination in question could be justified under 703(e) as a BFOQ. The beneficence of an employer s purpose does not undermine the conclusion that an explicit gender-based policy is sex discrimination under 703(a) and thus may be defended only as a BFOQ. 

---