2 ms·

> Discrimination lawsuits are not exactly an easy thing to win To expand upon this. You not only have to prove that a, e.g., policy or manager's behavior, resu

• dragonwriter 4y ago
  > To expand upon this. You not only have to prove that a, e.g., policy or manager’s behavior, resulted in negative effects distributed along racial lines but also that there was racist intent behind that policy or behavior. No, you don’t. Once you show that a policy creates concrete disadvantage on racial lines, to overcome liability the employer must prove a sufficient business justification. (Griggs v. Duke Energy, the case often misrepresented as prohibiting IQ tests in employment, instead established that rule.) If you can establish specific intent regarding creating racial disadvantage, then no business justification can overcome that, but you don’t have to establish that to establish unlawful discrimination.
  • culi 4y ago
    If you wanna get into the weeds, it's "disparate treatment discrimination" that requires “intent,” whereas disparate impact discrimination does not. But this is maybe a useless discussion about the technical requirements. In practice winning a case without proving intent is extremely rare from what I've read Please correct me if I'm wrong