ADEA vs. Title VII
In class on Monday we started to discuss some of the differences between age discrimination and sex, race, religion discrimination protected under Title VII. We observed that the disparate-impact liability under Title VII is narrower than that under the ADEA.
For a quick summary, disparate impact addresses and employer who may not be motivated by discriminatory intent, however Title VII still prohibits an employer from suing "facially neutral" employment practice that has an adverse affect on members of a protected class. For example, a company may require a highschool diploma in order to be promoted or to work in a certain sector of the business. The "facially neutral" requriment may actually may be considered discriminatory under disparate-impact because it adverseley affect african americans who as a percentage do not hold HS diplomas as much as whites.
This type of discrimination is recognized under Title VII, but not under the ADEA. This is interesting because the ADEA was very closely modeled after Titile VII, except for the RFOA provision, which diluted the disparate -impact liability. In other cases of Title VII discrimination the law protects against stereotypes and related variables that can implicitly act as forms of discrimination. However, the ADA only protects narrowly, only against age stereotypes. And it does not protect against discrimination such as pension benefits.
Is this fair? Or should the ADEA be as inclusive as Title VII provisions?
For a quick summary, disparate impact addresses and employer who may not be motivated by discriminatory intent, however Title VII still prohibits an employer from suing "facially neutral" employment practice that has an adverse affect on members of a protected class. For example, a company may require a highschool diploma in order to be promoted or to work in a certain sector of the business. The "facially neutral" requriment may actually may be considered discriminatory under disparate-impact because it adverseley affect african americans who as a percentage do not hold HS diplomas as much as whites.
This type of discrimination is recognized under Title VII, but not under the ADEA. This is interesting because the ADEA was very closely modeled after Titile VII, except for the RFOA provision, which diluted the disparate -impact liability. In other cases of Title VII discrimination the law protects against stereotypes and related variables that can implicitly act as forms of discrimination. However, the ADA only protects narrowly, only against age stereotypes. And it does not protect against discrimination such as pension benefits.
Is this fair? Or should the ADEA be as inclusive as Title VII provisions?
posted by Frekinawesome at
10:54 AM
1 Comments:
Chris: Just two clarifications on this post. In the first paragraph you say that Title VII disparate impact is "narrower" than ADEA. If I understand correctly what you mean by "narrower" (i.e., that employees have a harder time making the claim, because fewer employer practices will give rise to a viable disparate imapct claim), you have it backwards. ADEA is narrower than Title VII. (My guess is, based on the rest of you post, that this is just a drafting "oops" and you really knew that.)
Second, your first sentence of the last paragraph says, "This type of discrimination is recognized under Title VII, but not under the ADEA." As you note later in that paragraph, though, that statement is not exactly true. The RFOA provision makes the road rougher for a disparate impact plaintiff under the ADEA, but the Supreme Court made clear in the Smith case that disparate impact liability is quite possible under the ADEA.
There appears to have been confusion about this point in genearl (posts below suggest this confusion), which makes me think I was not clear enough in class. My fault. We'll talk about it again today.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home