Workplace Discrimination Legal Help:Protected Classes, Disparate Treatment, and EEOC Charge Procedures

Employer policy or practice that on its face does not discriminate but disproportionately affects a protected class. Examples: physical ability tests that screen out women, college degree requirements that disproportionately affect minorities, criminal history screening that disproportionately affects African Americans.

Disparate impact requires statistical evidence showing disproportionate effect. The 'four-fifths rule' (selection rate for protected class less than 80% of non-protected class rate) is one common measure. More sophisticated statistical analysis often required.

Employer can defend by showing the practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Defense requires actual evidence; subjective beliefs about necessity insufficient. Specific job analysis often required.

Even when business necessity is shown, plaintiff can prevail by showing less discriminatory alternative practice would serve same purpose. Common alternatives: different selection criteria, structured interviews, work samples.

Codified disparate impact framework after Wards Cove Packing v. Atonio decision. Standard requirements for both proof and defense.

Available under ADA with specific framework. Selection criteria that disproportionately exclude individuals with disabilities.

Available but with reduced scope after Smith v. City of Jackson and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. Reasonable factor other than age (RFOA) defense.

Disparate impact cases often proceed as class actions because the impact affects many similarly situated employees.

Comparator evidence, statistical patterns, racial comments by decision-makers, segregated job categories. Section 1981 (42 U.S.C. § 1981) provides additional remedy with longer limitations period (4 years vs Title VII's shorter administrative deadline).

Comparator evidence between male and female employees, sex-based comments, treatment of pregnant employees, sexual stereotyping. Sexual harassment is separate category (see Sexual Harassment page).

Replacement by younger worker, age-related comments ('looking for fresh blood,' 'new generation'), pattern of replacing older workers. ADEA but-for causation (Gross v. FBL Financial). Statistical analysis of workforce age distribution.

Failure to accommodate, regarded-as-disabled cases, association with disabled person. ADA requires reasonable accommodation through interactive process. Major life activities expanded by ADA Amendments Act 2008.

Failure to accommodate religious practices, religious harassment, retaliation for religious expression. Reasonable accommodation required absent undue hardship. Title VII protects religious practices broadly.

Country of origin, ancestry, language, accent. Some claims overlap with race. English-only rules sometimes discrimination. Legal status verification cannot be used as pretext.

Sexual orientation and gender identity protected under Title VII per Bostock. State laws often provide additional protection. Bathroom access, dress code, pronoun usage emerging issues.

Pregnancy must be treated like other temporary disabilities. Failure to accommodate pregnancy-related limitations may violate PDA. Young v. UPS clarified accommodation framework. State laws often broader (PWFA federal 2023).

Discrimination based on caregiver responsibilities. Often charged as sex discrimination because primarily affects women caregivers. Limited but emerging area.

Most important circumstantial evidence. Identify similarly situated employees outside protected class who were treated more favorably. 'Similarly situated' typically requires same supervisor, similar position, comparable conduct, comparable circumstances.

Pattern of positive reviews followed by sudden negative review supports pretext. Year-over-year review history. Comparison to other employees' reviews.

Workforce composition, hiring patterns, termination patterns, promotion patterns. Statistical disparities support inference of discrimination. Particularly in disparate impact cases.

Direct evidence when present. Comments by decision-makers most compelling. Comments by non-decision-makers less probative but can support pattern.

Deviations from normal procedures, employer policies, or industry practice. Process irregularities support pretext.

Different reasons given at different times for adverse action. Inconsistency strongly supports pretext.

Co-workers who can testify about decision-maker statements, comparator treatment, or actual reasons for action. Particularly current and former employees with knowledge.

Cause findings by EEOC are admissible in subsequent lawsuit and create persuasive evidence. No-cause findings are not binding but can affect strategy.

Internal employer communications about the employee, the protected characteristic, or the adverse action decision. Often discoverable in litigation.

When protected class is not obvious (national origin, religion, disability), documentation establishing the protected status. Less commonly an issue.