Regardless, unintentional discrimination is not discrimination and never has been. Another giveaway and lowering of standards has been eliminated;
Last week, the Trump Justice Department issued a new rule updating its Title VI regulations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This rule eliminates disparate impact liability, meaning that a program or decision-maker is no longer presumed to be guilty of racial discrimination solely because their policies or decisions affect different racial or ethnic groups in various ways.
Congress enacted Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to prohibit intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal funding. Title VII addresses discrimination specifically in private-sector employment and hiring practices. The nondiscrimination laws from this period are often referred to as equal opportunity laws.
None of these laws refers to "disparate impact."
They targeted intentional bigotry and prejudice that unfairly deprives Americans of equal opportunity based on their race.
In 1973, the federal government added "disparate impact" to regulations implementing these laws. These regulations either presumed malicious intent or disregarded intent, which contradicted the purpose of these laws.
The key difference is intent: Disparate treatment refers to intentional discrimination (e.g., not hiring a woman solely because she is a woman), whereas disparate impact involves unintentional discrimination, where a neutral policy disproportionately adversely affects a protected group.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon announced the change in a release from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
Under this new standard, the Justice Department will essentially deprioritize discrimination cases that rely on “disparate impact.”
In April 2024, Biden’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit accusing Sheetz of racial discrimination.
Sheetz, Inc. is an American chain of convenience stores that operates 24/7 year-round. Its locations offer made-to-order fast food, and most stores include a gas station. A few locations are full-scale truck stops, providing amenities such as showers and a laundromat.
This is a well-respected family-owned company that employs over 21,000 people and operates more than 750 company-owned stores across Western, Central, and Northeastern Pennsylvania, as well as in West Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Michigan.
Sheetz was not accused of discarding resumes with names presumed to be those of Black applicants, nor of ending Zoom interviews if the applicant was a minority.
Sheetz was sued for screening applicants based on past criminal history and hiring on that basis.
According to the EEOC:
Sheetz didn’t disqualify all applicants with criminal backgrounds. While its hiring practices are kept confidential, it is reasonable to assume it drew the line at violent offenses or felonies.
The charges are irrelevant because if any racial group commits more crimes, then it would follow that Sheetz may deny their applications at a higher rate.
Sheetz should not be held accountable for higher crime rates in any race category. However, according to the EEOC, Sheetz was nonetheless responsible for rank discrimination.
Sheetz acted responsibly by seeking to protect the public. They were taking precautions to prevent violent or dangerous individuals from working at their locations. Unfortunately, that was not sufficient for the EEOC.
In April, Trump signed a separate executive order rolling back disparate impact liability, prompting the EEOC to drop its case against Sheetz.
The Sheetz case clearly illustrates the absurdity of the "disparate impact" theory. Even if you implement a sensible policy to safeguard your workplace and customers, you could face consequences if that policy results in hiring fewer minorities, regardless of whether that was your intention.
Ultimately, this change aims to significantly reduce frivolous lawsuits, which, when it was added in 1973, did nothing but provide a pathway like DEI that encourages a government-backed quota system. Merit and standards are not discriminatory. However, eliminating them does discriminate against those applicants who are most qualified, because companies, both public and private, are blackmailed into hiring the less qualified to avoid being sued.
If a claim appears legitimate, the entity accused of disparate impact discrimination must justify its practices by showing that they serve legitimate business purposes.
This is a legitimate change that was long overdue. Aside from Politico whining about it, the change seems to have gone unnoticed by the left. Regardless, unintentional discrimination is not discrimination and never has been. Another giveaway and lowering of standards has been eliminated.
Read next: Study Finds 64 Online Abortion Pill Vendors Violate FDA Safety Regulations
Email Us | Reader Friendly | Comments
