Introduction
Although both disparate impact and treatment have similar discriminatory nature, they are different in terms of the intentions behind the discriminatory and biased outcomes. Thus, disparate treatment is a phenomenon that categorizes one’s intentionally biased attitude towards race, sex, gender, religious or ethnic affiliation. The notion of disparate impact, on the other hand, aims at describing incidents that were not discriminatory and biased in nature yet eventually led to disproportional outcomes within the organization. For example, when speaking of promotion procedures within the organization, both disparate impact and treatment may be observed. Thus, when a company explicitly avoids promoting minority employees despite their professional achievements and expertise, the phenomenon may be rightfully labeled as disparate treatment. However, if the company accounts for the vast majority of male Caucasian top managers exclusively because of their professionalism and experience, the disparity is characterized as a disparate impact.
Complaint Procedure
In case an employee experiences discrimination, they are able to report an informal complaint to the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) within 45 days after the alleged offense taking place. After the inquiry, EEO counselors reach out to the employees, discuss the situation and inform them of their legal rights, subsequently addressing the issue to the employer and management. If no action is taken after the informal inquiry, employees are eligible to file a formal complaint to the EEO office and encourage the initiation of a full-scale legal investigation on the workplace (Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA], 2018). In all cases, the EEO highly recommends immediate communication with the office representatives in order to have the legal ability to proceed with the case.
Defenses Available to the Company
Once an employee presents any kind of discriminatory complaint, the employer’s primary objective is to find legal justification for one’s employment decisions. For example, a decision to promote a Caucasian employee instead of their minority counterpart should be supported by indisputable data that such a decision was based solely on the employer’s considerations for business benefit. In certain cases, the company may also utilize the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) provisions as a justification for one’s employment decisions. This strategy is only applicable to cases that are not secured by the provisions stated in the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Essentially, in order to build a proper defense line, employers are to adopt existing public employment blueprints such as the Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures (“Avoiding adverse impact in employment practices,” 2020). Hence, it may be concluded that employers are to find reasonable and tangible explanations for every decision made on behalf of their organization.
Suggestions for Avoiding Complaints
The first and arguably the most important recommendation would be to develop an exhaustive code of ethics for the company that would condemn any slightest manifestation of biased behavior in the workplace. The second suggestion concerns following the legal guides and procedures established by the government in order not to face complications in the case of disparate impact complaints. Moreover, it is of paramount importance for the employers and human resources to mirror the socio-political and demographic tendencies within the organization, which means striving for employees from diverse backgrounds and accounting for this diversity in terms of approaching employees. Finally, it is necessary to record any employment decision in relation to its contribution to the company in the case of emerging discriminatory allegations.
References
Avoiding adverse impact in employment practices. (2020). SHRM. Web.
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA]. (2018). A guide to filing an equal employment opportunity complaint[PDF document].