3 ms·

It should be noted that even if there is a non-discriminatory explanation, it is still illegal under the disparate impact legal theory: https://en.wikipedia.or

It should be noted that even if there is a non-discriminatory explanation, it is still illegal under the disparate impact legal theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

Manuel_D 3y ago
Not exactly, as per your link: > ...an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class... Requiring doctors to have an MD is going to have a disparate impact on all sorts of factors, including protected classes. Likewise, an anonymized leetcode question isn't going to pass candidates uniformly across identities. But there's a pretty strong case that the use of such measures is justified. Prioritizing candidates with a referral might be argued to be a disparate impact without justification, and that's somewhere there might be a stronger case but it's not so clear cut.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  Notably, "justification" is an affirmative defense (they don't have to prove you were unjustified - you have to prove you were justified. Guilty until proven innocent, in other words), and in practice must meet a very high bar - e.g. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., that started all this, ruled that an IQ test for management positions is not justified. More recently, a test for teachers where Whites had a higher pass rate than Blacks or Latinos (no word on Asians) was also ruled unjustified: https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-latino-teachers-collecting-835-million-in-discrimination-lawsuit-11657800508 https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-latino-teachers-collectin...
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    A controversial ruling, especially given how prevalent exams are for employment: MD, JD for lawyers, heck even a bachelor's degree is a disparate impact. Notably, one of the lawyers who helped overturn Brown vs Board of Education (now a judge) ruled in favor of New York in a lower court: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/the-teachers-who-oppose-tests https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/the-teach...

Manuel_D 3y ago

Not exactly, as per your link: > ...an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class... Requiring doctors to have an MD is going to have a disparate impact on all sorts of factors, including protected classes. Likewise, an anonymized leetcode question isn't going to pass candidates uniformly across identities. But there's a pretty strong case that the use of such measures is justified. Prioritizing candidates with a referral might be argued to be a disparate impact without justification, and that's somewhere there might be a stronger case but it's not so clear cut.

SenAnder 3y ago
Notably, "justification" is an affirmative defense (they don't have to prove you were unjustified - you have to prove you were justified. Guilty until proven innocent, in other words), and in practice must meet a very high bar - e.g. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., that started all this, ruled that an IQ test for management positions is not justified. More recently, a test for teachers where Whites had a higher pass rate than Blacks or Latinos (no word on Asians) was also ruled unjustified: https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-latino-teachers-collecting-835-million-in-discrimination-lawsuit-11657800508 https://www.wsj.com/articles/black-latino-teachers-collectin...
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  A controversial ruling, especially given how prevalent exams are for employment: MD, JD for lawyers, heck even a bachelor's degree is a disparate impact. Notably, one of the lawyers who helped overturn Brown vs Board of Education (now a judge) ruled in favor of New York in a lower court: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/the-teachers-who-oppose-tests https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/the-teach...