Disparate Treatment and the Law

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that the City of Jackson, Mississippi adopted a revised pay plan granting raises to all city employees in the police and fire departments under which officers and dispatchers with fewer than five years tenure received proportionately greater raises than employees who had more than five years tenure. The author relates that a disparate impact claim, "Smith vs. City of Jackson", under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 was made; but the court, in an 8-0 opinion, rejected it because employees failed to identify any specific practice within the pay plan that had an adverse impact on older workers and the city's plan was based on reasonable factors other than age. The paper points out that the "Jespersen vs. Harrah's" in which Jespersen refused to comply with the makeup requirements, claiming disparate sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also was rejected because the requirement imposed equal burdens on both sexes.

From the Paper:

"The question presented was whether a disparate impact claim, a claim alleging unintentional discrimination, can be made under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). In an 8-0 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that ADEA authorized recovery in disparate-impact cases, but that in this case petitioners failed to set forth a valid claim. The Court relied on its 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power, where the Court first authorized disparate-impact claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

More papers on Disparate Treatment and the Law:

• Essay # 73620 : "Labor Law"
• Term Paper # 124847 : "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act"
• Persuasive Essay # 105886 : "Racial Discrimination"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: