Justice Department sets stage for end of racial hiring quotas
Is a reading comprehension test racist if fewer black people pass it than white people? Is a pushup requirement sexist if fewer women can pass it than men? For decades, employers have faced the impossible task of identifying objective measures to analyze job applicants while also ensuring the demographics of those who pass those tests match the general population. It has been nothing short of a social and legal proscription against telling the truth.
TL;DR
- The Justice Department's recent opinion letter suggests that the EEOC's interpretation of disparate impact liability is unconstitutional.
- This challenges the precedent set by Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which held that practices fair in form but discriminatory in operation violate civil rights law.
- The decision aims to resolve the contradiction between disparate impact liability and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
- The article references the Ricci v. DeStefano case as an example of the difficulties employers face when trying to avoid disparate impact lawsuits.
- The Justice Department's new policy will reduce federal government support for private plaintiffs making disparate impact claims.