Author Question: Disparate-Impact Discrimination. Local 1066 of the Steamship Clerks Union accepted only new members ... (Read 64 times)

lilldybug07 · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Disparate-Impact Discrimination. Local 1066 of the Steamship Clerks Union accepted only new members who were sponsored by existing members. All of the existing members were white. During a six-year period, the local admitted thirty new members, all of whom were rela-tives of present members and also white. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a suit in a federal district court against the union, alleging that this practice constituted disparate-impact discrimination under Title VII. The union argued that it was only continuing a family tradition. What does each party have to prove to win its case? Should the union be required to change its practice?

Question 2

An agent's authority is the power to change the principal's legal obligations.
a. True
b. False
Indicate whether the statement is true or false

mammy1697 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

Disparate-impact discrimination
To establish disparate-impact discrimination, a plaintiff must first identify the challenged employment practice. Second, the plaintiff must show a disparate impact on a group characteristic, such as race, that falls under Title VII. Third, the plaintiff must show that the practice caused the disparate impact. To defend its practice, a defendant may attack the plaintiff's case by asserting, for example, that the alleged policy does not exist, that it has no disparate impact, or that it is job-related and has a business necessity. In this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) established that the combined pool of potential black and Hispanic applicants for union membership ranged between 8 and 27 of the overall pool of potential applicants. The union claimed, among other things, that the practice was a business necessity because it represents an important vehicle for continuing family traditions. The district court ruled in favor of the EEOC, and the union appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the EEOC established a prima facie case. The court also concluded that the union failed to show how family tradition was essential to the business of steamship clerking. The court remanded the case for a determination of relief.

Answer to Question 2

TRUE