faqs.org » Abstracts Index » Abstracts » Law

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 and less discriminatory alternatives in disparate impact litigation

Article Abstract:

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 codified the 'disparate impact' claim for employment discrimination, but left many issues unresolved, including the substantiation needed for a business necessity defense and the relevance of costs of less discriminatory alternatives. The statutory language suggests a relaxed standard for business necessity, increasing the need for plaintiffs to propose less discriminatory alternatives. Employers should not be allowed to cite cost as a defense against adopting a less discriminatory alternative as that would continue to impose the costs upon the victims of discrimination.

Sex discrimination

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1991: the business necessity standard

Article Abstract:

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 directs courts to apply a broad, pro-plaintiff interpretation of the business necessity standard to disparate impact employment discrimination suits. The legislation was passed in an attempt to counter several recent US Supreme Court decisions, especially Wards Cove Packing Co v Atonio, which had limited plaintiffs' ability to win employment discrimination cases. Although the statutory language is ambiguous, Congress clearly intended to overturn the business necessity test of Wards Cove.

---

Employment discrimination - Title VII - Seventh Circuit reaffirms a narrow definition of "employer" for the purposes of Title VII. - EEOC v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Inc., 60 F.3d 1225 (7th Cir. 1995)

Article Abstract:

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in EEOC v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises that part-time and hourly workers not present in the workplace are not employees for the purposes of the 15-employee threshold in Title VII discrimination cases. The court's interpretation of the statute is inconsistent with that adopted in other circuits. Extension of this interpretation into other areas of the law would result in denial of discrimination protections for many part-time workers.

United States, Interpretation and construction, Labor law

Some parts © 2012 Advameg, Inc.