无形的禁令:疏忽的差异影响

K. R. Davis
{"title":"无形的禁令:疏忽的差异影响","authors":"K. R. Davis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3849456","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The murder of George Floyd ignited a resurgence of civil rights activism. Spearheaded by Black Lives Matter, this movement has sparked a new dialogue to address racial inequities. In this current atmosphere of heightened awareness, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a unique opportunity to advance the cause of civil rights by expanding job opportunities for African Americans. As currently interpreted, Title VII provides two primary anti-discrimination theories: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate-treatment law prohibits intentional employment discrimination against a member of a protected class. Disparate-impact law imposes strict liability on employers that use facially neutral employment practices that have a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class. This Article suggests following the structure of tort law as a template for the law of employment discrimination. A comparison of Title VII to tort law reveals that an analogy to negligent torts is absent from Title VII. The means of rectifying this deficiency is clear. The very language of Title VII suggests the duty, causation, and injury elements of a claim of negligent disparate impact. Following the tort analogy, negligent disparate-impact claims would provide a more expansive array of remedies than those that are available under the current theory of disparate impact. Specifically, compensatory damages and a broad spectrum of equitable remedies would be available to victims of negligent disparate impact. In keeping with the negligence model, this Article then suggests how to adapt the business-necessity defense and the less discriminatory alternative doctrine to negligent disparate-impact theory. This Article concludes by pointing out the benefits of recognizing this claim. First, victims would be entitled to remedies that fit the level of wrongdoing, and enhanced remedies would incentivize victims to seek redress. The risk of such liability would spur employers to cleanse their workplaces of practices that might result in discriminatory outcomes. Negligent disparate-impact theory would therefore deter employment discrimination. Equally important, recognition of a claim for negligent disparate impact would reaffirm federal law’s dedication to achieving equal opportunity in the workplace.","PeriodicalId":277475,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Theories of Discrimination (Disparate Treatment","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Invisible Ban: Negligent Disparate Impact\",\"authors\":\"K. R. Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3849456\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The murder of George Floyd ignited a resurgence of civil rights activism. Spearheaded by Black Lives Matter, this movement has sparked a new dialogue to address racial inequities. In this current atmosphere of heightened awareness, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a unique opportunity to advance the cause of civil rights by expanding job opportunities for African Americans. As currently interpreted, Title VII provides two primary anti-discrimination theories: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate-treatment law prohibits intentional employment discrimination against a member of a protected class. Disparate-impact law imposes strict liability on employers that use facially neutral employment practices that have a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class. This Article suggests following the structure of tort law as a template for the law of employment discrimination. A comparison of Title VII to tort law reveals that an analogy to negligent torts is absent from Title VII. The means of rectifying this deficiency is clear. The very language of Title VII suggests the duty, causation, and injury elements of a claim of negligent disparate impact. Following the tort analogy, negligent disparate-impact claims would provide a more expansive array of remedies than those that are available under the current theory of disparate impact. Specifically, compensatory damages and a broad spectrum of equitable remedies would be available to victims of negligent disparate impact. In keeping with the negligence model, this Article then suggests how to adapt the business-necessity defense and the less discriminatory alternative doctrine to negligent disparate-impact theory. This Article concludes by pointing out the benefits of recognizing this claim. First, victims would be entitled to remedies that fit the level of wrongdoing, and enhanced remedies would incentivize victims to seek redress. The risk of such liability would spur employers to cleanse their workplaces of practices that might result in discriminatory outcomes. Negligent disparate-impact theory would therefore deter employment discrimination. Equally important, recognition of a claim for negligent disparate impact would reaffirm federal law’s dedication to achieving equal opportunity in the workplace.\",\"PeriodicalId\":277475,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Theories of Discrimination (Disparate Treatment\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Theories of Discrimination (Disparate Treatment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3849456\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Theories of Discrimination (Disparate Treatment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3849456","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

乔治·弗洛伊德的谋杀案点燃了民权运动的复兴。在“黑人的命也是命”的带头下,这场运动引发了一场针对种族不平等的新对话。在当前这种意识提高的氛围下,1964年《民权法案》第七章提供了一个独特的机会,通过扩大非洲裔美国人的就业机会来推进民权事业。根据目前的解释,第七章提供了两种主要的反歧视理论:差别待遇和差别影响。差别待遇法禁止对受保护阶层的成员进行蓄意的就业歧视。差别影响法对那些使用表面中立的雇佣做法对受保护阶层产生不成比例的不利影响的雇主规定了严格的责任。本文建议以侵权法的结构作为就业歧视法的模板。将第七章与侵权法进行比较可以发现,第七章并没有与过失侵权法进行类比。纠正这一缺陷的方法是明确的。第七章的措辞暗示了过失差别影响索赔的责任、因果关系和伤害要素。根据侵权类比,过失差别影响索赔将提供比现行差别影响理论所提供的更为广泛的救济。具体而言,过失差别影响的受害者可以获得补偿性损害赔偿和广泛的公平补救办法。在此基础上,本文提出了如何将商业必要性抗辩和较少歧视的替代原则与过失差别影响理论相适应。本文最后指出承认这一主张的好处。首先,受害者将有权获得与不法行为程度相适应的补救措施,加强补救措施将激励受害者寻求补救措施。这种责任的风险将促使雇主清理其工作场所可能导致歧视性结果的做法。因此,过失差异影响理论将阻止就业歧视。同样重要的是,承认过失歧视影响的主张将重申联邦法律致力于在工作场所实现机会平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Invisible Ban: Negligent Disparate Impact
The murder of George Floyd ignited a resurgence of civil rights activism. Spearheaded by Black Lives Matter, this movement has sparked a new dialogue to address racial inequities. In this current atmosphere of heightened awareness, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides a unique opportunity to advance the cause of civil rights by expanding job opportunities for African Americans. As currently interpreted, Title VII provides two primary anti-discrimination theories: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate-treatment law prohibits intentional employment discrimination against a member of a protected class. Disparate-impact law imposes strict liability on employers that use facially neutral employment practices that have a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class. This Article suggests following the structure of tort law as a template for the law of employment discrimination. A comparison of Title VII to tort law reveals that an analogy to negligent torts is absent from Title VII. The means of rectifying this deficiency is clear. The very language of Title VII suggests the duty, causation, and injury elements of a claim of negligent disparate impact. Following the tort analogy, negligent disparate-impact claims would provide a more expansive array of remedies than those that are available under the current theory of disparate impact. Specifically, compensatory damages and a broad spectrum of equitable remedies would be available to victims of negligent disparate impact. In keeping with the negligence model, this Article then suggests how to adapt the business-necessity defense and the less discriminatory alternative doctrine to negligent disparate-impact theory. This Article concludes by pointing out the benefits of recognizing this claim. First, victims would be entitled to remedies that fit the level of wrongdoing, and enhanced remedies would incentivize victims to seek redress. The risk of such liability would spur employers to cleanse their workplaces of practices that might result in discriminatory outcomes. Negligent disparate-impact theory would therefore deter employment discrimination. Equally important, recognition of a claim for negligent disparate impact would reaffirm federal law’s dedication to achieving equal opportunity in the workplace.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信