Question

A division of Frank Clothiers had 36 openings for assistant store manager last year. As part of their voluntary affirmative action plan, they filled the vacancies with 16 African-Americans, 10 Hispanics, and 10 Whites. The selection process was a multiple-hurdle approach which began with an application form and a test of basic verbal and math skills called the Wonderlic Personnel Test. Applicants who scored 25 (out of 50) or higher on the test were then given an interview with the store managers. Based on the interview performances, the vacancies were filled. The numbers of African-Americans, Hispanics, and Whites who passed the test were as follows:_______.
Test ScoresAfrican-AmericansHispanicsWhites# scoring 25 or more252874# scoring less than 25262029Totals5148103Dennis Goebel, one of the African-American applicants who scored 19 on the test, filed a suit on behalf of all African-American applicants who failed. Mr. Goebel claimed race discrimination based upon Title 7. Frank Clothiers argued that more African-Americans were actually hired than any other protected class. Thus, the company asserts, there is obviously no racial discrimination in the selection process.Can disparate impact theory be used in cases involving subjective selection processes like interviews? What Supreme Court case supports your decision?

Answer 1

Answer:

Explanation:

Yes, Disparate Impact Theory can be used in this case relating to the processes of subjective selection such as interrogations. If a discriminatory workplace practice has an unfair and aggressive impact on minorities, it may be in violation of Title VII. Professional individual employees who support on the basis of discretionary judgments without intending to do so are engaging in biased conduct.

The case of Watson V. Fort Worth Bank & Trust will be used to support my claim. Clara Watson turned down a promotion that was contingent on an interview under this scenario.

The U.s. Supreme Court Declared that a Title VII claim to a strategy of subjection enforcement can only be investigated under the unequal care principle. In the majority decision, the Court allowed the principle of (disparate effects) to apply to arbitrarily defined work practices.