Disparate Impact
Pashaun
Management 434
October 25, 2005

 
Disparate Impact
Disparate impact occurs when an employer uses a system that is not purposefully discriminatory, but nevertheless has a negative impact on a class protected under Title VII (Bennett-Alexander, 2003).  EEOC vs Dial Corp., S.D. Iowa, No. 3-02-CV-10109, 2/3/05 is a case that illustrates disparate impact and how an employer may attempt to use a screening process in order to discriminate and prevent a specific group of individuals from being employed. 
In September 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Dial Corporation alleging that the strength test instituted by the company was discriminatory against women (EEOC v. Dial Corporation (Iowa)).  The test required the repeated lifting of 35 pounds to a height of 65 inches.  The pass rate of the strength test was disproportionate because the male applicants passed at a 97% success rate in comparison to 40% of the female applicants (Rosenblaum, 2005).  According to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, there is a 20% margin allowable between the outcome of the majority (men) and minority (women) under a given screening process (Bennett-Alexander, 2003).  Disparate impact has been consistently demonstrated when the rate of selection for groups protected under Title VII is less than 80% (Bennett-Alexander, 2003).
The case went to trial and a jury found that Dial's use of this screening test was purposefully discriminatory against women.  The presiding judge stated "the test was also illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it had a disparate impact against female applicants and was not justified by ...