Disparate Impact

A Reflection on Disparate Treatment or Disparate Impact:

Is it more difficult to prove evidence of disparate treatment or disparate impact?

Darisa S. Hardiman

Tennessee State University

Reflection 2:

Disparate treatment is a term that I have never heard before. Reading the text and learning that the correct terminology for what I experienced, at my former place of employment, was very eye opening. The outcome of a discrimination case can come in different forms but the most common I have observed in the workplace is disparate treatment. Both disparate treatment and disparate impact are important subjects to address when discrimination is discussed and I know that proving disparate treatment is more difficult than proving disparate impact.

Robinson and Franklin (2014) defined disparate treatment as “…treating individuals in the workplace differently because of their membership in a protected class” (p. 58) and defined disparate treatment as “focuses mangers’ and HR professionals’ attention on statistical imbalances in their workforces” (p. 58). Based off of these definitions alone, disparate treatment is harder to prove. The reason I believe disparate treatment is harder to prove is because of the need to show evidence on how and individual or individuals where treated differently based off of their race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability or pregnant condition. The most important thing in any case filed with the EEOC of FEPA needs to have some type of evidence to prove to the investigator or court that an act of discrimination has happened. In order to prove that a case of disparate treatment has happened the complaining party will need to provide credible witnesses or documentation that an act of discrimination has happened to them due to their protected class. After reading and understanding disparate impact, a complaining party could simply provide statistical data to prove an act of discrimination has happened to a specific...