Lecture Notes
Lussier, Human Resource Management, Third Edition
SAGE Publishing, 2018
Disparate (adverse) treatment. Disparate treatment exists when individuals in similar situations
are intentionally treated differently and the different treatment is based on an individual’s
membership in a protected class. In a court case, the plaintiff must prove that there was a
discriminatory motive—that is, that the employer intended to discriminate—in order to prove
disparate treatment. Disparate treatment is generally illegal unless the employer can show that
Disparate (adverse) impact. Disparate impact occurs when an officially neutral employment
practice disproportionately excludes the members of a protected group; it is generally
considered to be unintentional, but intent is irrelevant. For there to be discrimination under
disparate treatment, there has to be intentional discrimination. Under disparate impact, intent
does not matter.
As an example, some characteristics (e.g., height and strength) are not distributed equally
across race and gender groups, and in some jobs, these characteristics may be related to
successful performance in the job. Therefore, disparate impact is not necessarily illegal. The
important question is whether the characteristic is related to successful performance on the job,
meaning whether it has job relatedness. Disparate impact is generally judged by use of the Four-
Fifths Rule that we discussed earlier. Both the Department of Labor (through their Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures) and the EEOC have expressed a preference for
using the Four–Fifths Rule to determine disparate impact. If the four-fifths requirement is not
satisfied, discrimination is considered to have occurred but illegal discrimination has not