Abstract & Commentary
(from J. Laurie Snell)
The main issues referred to in
the Griggs v. Dude decision is the possibility of so-called
"disparate- impact" lawsuits. These are lawsuits that
challenge employment practices that unintentionally but
disproportionately affect people of a particular race, color,
religion, sex or national origin.
The supreme court has twice changed the ground rules set up in
the Griggs v. Duke decision. The current rules related to these
suits are governed by the Civil Rights act of 1991. According to
this law, if a plaintiff shows that a specific part of the
employment practice disproportionately affects a particular
group, then the employer must be able to demonstrate that the
employment practice or criterion in question is consistent with a
business necessity (whatever that means).
In order to prove disparate impact using statistical comparisons,
the comparison must be with racial compositions of the
qualified people in the work force, not the racial composition of
the entire work force.
When multiple employment criteria are required and it can be
argued that they cannot be separated, then the entire employment
process may be challenged if it can be shown to have a
disproportionate effect on a particular group.
For a more detailed discussion of this legislation see "New
Act Clarifies Disparate Impact Law", Casey and Montgomery,
The
National Law Journal , March 9, 1992.