Understanding Discriminatory Intent In Employment Decisions

Discrimination in employment decisions is illegal and constitutes discriminatory intent when an employer makes decisions about job referrals, promotions, or assignments based on an employee's race, colour, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are federal laws that protect individuals from discriminatory employment decisions. Evidence of discriminatory intent can be direct or circumstantial, and it is up to the courts and federal funding agencies to evaluate the evidence and determine whether intentional discrimination has occurred.

Explore related products

Employment Discrimination Law, Cases and Materials on Equality in the Workplace (American Casebook Series)

$301

Examples & Explanations for Employment Discrimination (Examples & Explanations Series)

$47.99 $76.95

Cases and Materials on Employment Discrimination: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook Series)

$148.87 $359

A Short & Happy Guide to Employment Discrimination (Short & Happy Guides)

$28 $28

Employment Discrimination: Procedure, Principles, and Practice [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook)

$252.94 $359

Employment Discrimination: A Context and Practice Casebook (Context and Practice Series)

$91.68 $155

Stereotypes and assumptions about protected characteristics

For instance, it is illegal for employers to make hiring decisions, job assignments, or promotions based on stereotypes or assumptions about an individual's race. Similarly, employers cannot base decisions on stereotypes related to colour, religion, sex (including transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information.

Direct evidence of discriminatory intent often involves statements from decision-makers expressing a motive. However, it can also include explicit classifications that distribute benefits or burdens based on protected characteristics. For example, in the case of Steger v. Gen. Elec. Co., the defendant had to provide specific qualifications that made the hired applicant "best qualified" and demonstrate why they were considered superior to the plaintiff, indicating possible discriminatory intent.

Additionally, in the context of employment, disparate impact on a protected group can be evidence of discriminatory intent. For instance, in the case of a cement grinding facility, the court found intentional discrimination because the operation disproportionately burdened a minority community, and the defendant failed to take measures to address this.

Furthermore, the EEOC prohibits inquiries about specific organisations, clubs, societies, or lodges during the pre-employment process, as these may indicate the applicant's protected characteristics and could be used as evidence of discriminatory intent unless justified by a business purpose.

While the Supreme Court has not provided a single definition of 'discriminatory intent', the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and Title VII of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 provide additional protections and authorise compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination.

Direct or circumstantial evidence of intent

Direct evidence of discriminatory intent often involves statements from decision-makers expressing a discriminatory motive. This can include explicit references to race, colour, or national origin in policy documents or communications. For example, a statement indicating that a hiring decision was based on selecting the "best qualified" applicant without providing specific qualifications or reasons for their decision may indicate discriminatory intent.

Additionally, direct evidence can include express or admitted classifications, where benefits or burdens are explicitly distributed based on protected characteristics. This could be in the form of a policy that overtly singles out a protected group for disparate treatment, such as excluding individuals of a specific race or national origin from employment opportunities.

Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, may involve evaluating the totality of relevant facts and can include a combination of different types of evidence. For example, in the context of a cement grinding facility, plaintiffs claimed intentional discrimination based on the defendant's knowledge of the impact on a minority community, historical practices, and a sequence of events leading to the placement decision.

Another form of circumstantial evidence is disparate impact, where employment practices or policies have a discriminatory effect on individuals with protected characteristics, even if that was not the intent. This can be demonstrated through statistical evidence, such as comparing pass rates of a discriminatory test for job applicants.

Furthermore, evidence of discriminatory intent can be inferred from differences in treatment. For instance, if similarly situated individuals of a different race or sex are treated differently in similar employment situations, it is reasonable to infer that discrimination has occurred, absent other evidence.

In conclusion, determining discriminatory intent involves examining direct and circumstantial evidence, including statements, policies, disparate impact, and differences in treatment. While there may be no single definition of "discriminatory intent," the legal system aims to identify and address intentional discrimination in employment decisions through a comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence.

Explicitly distributing benefits or burdens

In the United States, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) laws prohibit discriminatory employment decisions based on race, colour, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information.

In addition to explicit statements, discriminatory intent can also be inferred from differences in treatment. For example, if similarly situated individuals of a different race or sex are treated differently in similar employment situations, it is reasonable to infer that discrimination has occurred, even if it is not explicitly stated in employment policies or practices.

Furthermore, discriminatory intent can be established through a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. This includes inquiries about an applicant's protected characteristics during the pre-employment process, such as questions about their race, sex, national origin, disability status, or age. While these inquiries may not be explicitly prohibited, they may be used as evidence of an employer's intent to discriminate unless justified by a legitimate business purpose.

In the context of employment, it is important to note that a defendant must provide specific reasons for their employment decisions, such as seniority, qualifications, or experience. If a plaintiff can demonstrate that these reasons are false or pretextual, it may be evidence of prohibited discriminatory intent.

Discriminatory intent can also be found in the administration of programs or activities that deny individuals benefits or restrict their enjoyment of advantages based on their protected characteristics. This includes the use of discriminatory tests or criteria that have a disparate impact on certain protected groups.

While the Supreme Court has not provided a single definition of "discriminatory intent", the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the EEOC provide guidance on proving intentional discrimination and prohibited discriminatory practices in employment.

Explore related products

Experiencing Employment Discrimination Law (Experiencing Law Series)

$284

Federal Law of Employment Discrimination in a Nutshell (Nutshells)

$62 $62

Principles of Employment Discrimination Law (Concise Hornbook Series)

$70 $70

Employment Discrimination: Fourth Edition (Examples & Explanations Series)

$35 $71.95

Understanding Employment Discrimination Law, Third Edition

$44 $55

Cases and Materials on Employment Discrimination and Employment Law, the Field as Practiced (American Casebook Series)

$301

Disparate impact on protected groups

Disparate impact is a violation of substantive equality, which refers to equality in outcomes for groups. It is a legal theory of liability under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from using a neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class.

Protected characteristics vary by statute, but most federal civil rights laws consider race, colour, religion, national origin, and sex to be protected characteristics. Some laws also include disability status, age, transgender status, sexual orientation, pregnancy, and genetic information.

Disparate impact lawsuits focus on proving that a seemingly neutral policy or practice disproportionately affects a protected group negatively. In these cases, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to justify the business necessity of the policy or practice in question. This is known as "business necessity", which requires an employer to show that the policy or practice in question is demonstrably related to a significant, legitimate employment goal.

Agencies should inquire about the challenged action's negative effect by looking at who is impacted and where the impact occurs to identify the legally relevant policy or practice. Investigating agencies should consider the sufficiency of the adversity or harm and carefully consider whether benefits to the affected group outweigh the harms.

In the employment context, disparate impact can be seen when a defendant states that an employment decision was based on hiring the "best qualified" applicant. However, they must provide specifics regarding that applicant's qualifications and demonstrate why that person's qualifications were considered superior.

Retaliation against individuals for filing a charge of discrimination

Retaliation is a common occurrence, with many cases illustrating that an original discrimination allegation fails to establish a violation of the law, but the subsequent retaliation allegation results in a discrimination finding. This is because individuals often seek to avenge a perceived offense, and when this is done by a management official, the retaliation can establish legal liability.

A complainant or agency can establish retaliation under two methods. The first is the direct method of proof, where complainants must offer evidence that they engaged in a protected activity, that the defendants subjected them to an adverse employment action, and that a causal connection exists between the two events. The second method is indirect proof, which involves the use of circumstantial evidence that the individual's protected activity led to an alleged adverse action, either wholly or in part, in response to the individual's protected conduct.

There are various examples of retaliation. In one case, an employee who had filed several unsuccessful EEO complaints found that their manager had placed information about the proceedings in her personnel file. This hindered her promotional opportunities. In another case, an employee claimed they were discriminated against during the promotional interview process. Two of the three interview panelists were managers involved in the employee's current or previous EEO complaints, and one of the panelists attempted to influence the selection process by asking a question that paralleled a previous conflict with the employee.

If someone at work retaliates against an individual for reporting harassment, the individual can file a lawsuit. After filing a report with the EEOC, they can learn how to get legal aid or find a lawyer.

Frequently asked questions