6 ms·
That's fairly irrelevant considering it's true of any sample. Even excluding one single person has a "disparate impact" since it consists of 100% of one gender
by corin_ 5y ago
That's fairly irrelevant considering it's true of any sample. Even excluding one single person has a "disparate impact" since it consists of 100% of one gender and 0% the other, etc. etc.
Since it's not targeted because of those categories not affecting exclusively those categories, it obviously wouldn't be covered.
(IANAL etc. but seems pretty clear.)
edit: more detailed explanation by fennecfoxen: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27570439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27570439
- thaumasiotes 5y ago> That's fairly irrelevant considering it's true of any sample. Yes, that's pretty much the point I'm making. The same argument applies to all claims of disparate impact. It occurs in every sample. > edit: more detailed explanation by fennecfoxen That explanation does not reflect the law. (Nor does yours.) Recall that the first disparate impact case ruled it was illegal to preserve a requirement that the company had imposed prior to the civil rights act, because of the effect that requirement had on black applicants. The shift from this set of requirements: Must be white Must have a college degree to this one: Must have a college degree constitutes illegal discrimination against blacks. Obviously no one claimed that the degree requirement was intended to keep blacks out.