Disparate treatment

What impact will pharmacogenomics have on promoting health, preventing and curing disease, and delivering appropriate care in communities of color What are the implications for differential health status, access to care, and disparate treatment for pharmacogenomic research and the delivery of pharmacogenomics-based medicine to communities of color ... 

Subsection B, which discusses preferential or disparate treatment, includes language that states that Title IX cannot be used to discriminate. This subsection does permit, however, the consideration in any hearing or proceeding under this chapter of statistical evidence tending to show that such an imbalance exists. 10 An imbalance exists, and has for over 15 years, between the fraction of women graduated with Ph.D.s in chemistry and the fraction of women who have applied and been hired for faculty openings in U.S. chemistry departments. 

Safety professionals should be aware that there are three (3) predominate theories under which discrimination can take form. The first theory is that of Disparate Treatment. Under the Disparate Treatment theory, the discrimination takes the form of intentionally treating individuals differently due to their race, sex, or other protected classification or characteristic. For example, the disparate treatment theory would apply where an employer denies a job to an individual because the individual is of a specific race or the safety professional only permits the male members of the safety team to travel to the safety conference. 

City s refusal to certify results was violation of Title VH s disparate-treatment prohibition absent some valid defense ... 

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Respondents asserted they had a good-faith belief that they would have violated the disparate-impact prohibition in Title VII, 2000e-2(k), had they certified the examination results. It follows, they maintained, that they cannot be held liable under Title VITs disparate-treatment provision for attempting to comply with Title VITs dispa-rate-impact bar. Petitioners countered that respondents good-faith belief was not a valid defense to allegations of disparate treatment and unconstitutional discrimination. 

S Petitioners raise a statutory claim, under the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII, and a constitutional claim, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A decision for petitioners on their statutory claim would provide the relief sought, so we consider it first. See Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 123, 105 S.Ct. 2520, 86 L.Ed.2d 81 (1985) Escambia County v. McMillan, 466 U.S. 48, 51, 104 S.Ct. 1577, 80 L.Ed.2d 36 (1984) (per curiam) ( [N]ormally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case ). 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., as amended, prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Title VII prohibits both intentional discrimination (known as disparate treatment ) as well as, in some cases, practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities (known as disparate impact ). 

Petitioners allege that when the CSB refused to certify the captain and lieutenant exam results based on the race of the successful candidates, it discriminated against them in violation of Title VITs disparate-treatment provision. The City counters that its decision was permissible because the tests appear[ed] to violate Title VITs disparate-impact provisions. Brief for Respondents 12. 

We consider, therefore, whether the purpose to avoid disparate-impact liability excuses what otherwise would be prohibited disparate-treatment discrimination. Courts often confront cases in which statutes and principles point in different directions. Our task is to provide guidance to employers and courts for situations when these two prohibitions could be in conflict absent a rule to reconcile them. In providing this guidance, our decision must be consistent with the important purpose of Title VII—that the workplace be an environment free of discrimination, where race is not a barrier to opportunity. 

S" The same interests are at work in the interplay between the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions of 2676 Title VII. Congress has imposed liability on employers for unintentional discrimination in order to rid... 

For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the strong-basis-in-evidence standard as a matter of statutory construction to resolve any conflict between the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions of Title VII. 

Our holding today clarifies how Title VII applies to resolve competing expectations under the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of our holding today it should be clear that the City would avoid disparate-impact liability based on the strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability. 

When an employer in a disparate-treatment case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 claims that an anployment decision, such as the refusal to promote, was based on a legitimate reason, two questions—one objective and one subjective— must be decided. The first, objective question is whether the reason... 

To reconcile the supposed conflict between disparate treatment and disparate impact, the Court offers an enigmatic standard. Ante, at 2673-2674. Employers may attempt to comply with Title VITs disparate-impact provision, the Court declares, only where there is a strong basis in evidence documenting the necessity of their action. Ante, at 2662. The Court s standard, drawn from inapposite equal protection precedents, is not elaborated. One is left to wonder what cases would meet the standard and why the Court is so sure this case does not. 

Title VII prohibits both "disparate treatment" and "disparate impact" discrimination. 

The ADEA prohibits disparate treatment discrimination, that is, intentional discrimination based on age. For example, the ADEA forbids an employer from giving a physical agility test only to applicants over age 50, based on a belief that they are less physically able to perform a particular job, but not testing younger applicants. 

---