Total Articles: 7
3d Cir.: Disparate Impact of Newark, NJ’s Residency Requirement
In Meditz v. City of Newark (PDF), the Third Circuit concluded that the City of Newark, New Jersey’s residency requirement may have unlawful disparate impact on non-Hispanic white applicants. The case was brought Gregory Meditz, an attorney acting pro se. Meditz alleged that the City’s residency requirement disparately impacted white, non-Hispanics and, as a result, white, non-Hispanics were under-represented in the City’s workforce.
Seventh Circuit Holds No "Token" Exception in Title VII Discrimination Cases
Favorable treatment of one minority employee did not absolve or justify discriminatory treatment against other employees of the same race or national origin, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, has held in Diaz v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc. No. 10-3073, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16325 (7th Cir. Aug. 8, 2011). The Court reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer and returned the case to the district court. The Seventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
Third Circuit Keeps the Peace but Dismisses Her Lawsuit
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Delaware) recently issued a reassuring decision for employers. In the case, the Court affirmed dismissal of racial discrimination and retaliation claims where there were no overt racial statements made by supervisors and the employer addressed all allegations promptly and in a manner reasonably calculated to prevent further harassment.
EMPLOYMENT TESTING AND UNINTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS.
For the second time in a year, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on whether civil service tests given to firefighters are discriminatory. Although the two opinions arise in the contexts of big city fire departments, they are significant for all employers who rely on standardized testing in the hiring process.
A HOBSON’S CHOICE: HIGH COURT SHARPLY LIMITS EMPLOYERS’ OPTIONS FOR AVOIDING BIAS CLAIMS.
When a group of White firefighters came out on top in a promotional exam, a Connecticut Fire Department became worried about possible racial bias in the exam.
'RICCI' AND A HARD PLACE.
When is it lawful under anti-discrimination laws for an employer to intentionally discriminate against members of one protected class, to avoid a disparate impact claim by individuals in another protected group? The U.S. Supreme Court addressed that question in Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009 DJDAR 9567 (June 29, 2009). The court's decision explains the interplay between two branches of anti-discrimination laws: disparate treatment and disparate impact.
US Supreme Court Rules For White Firefighters In Race Bias Case.
Is there such a thing as “reverse” race discrimination in the workplace? Yes. “Reverse discrimination” is not term found statutory prohibitions against job discrimination, but it is commonly understood to mean giving preference to minority employees at the expense of Caucasian employees. With few exceptions, discriminating against white employees is no less illegal than discriminating against minority employees.
