What is the difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact claims?

What is the difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact claims?

• A. Disparate treatment is unintentional discrimination; disparate impact results from neutral policies with discriminatory effects
• B. Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination; disparate impact results from neutral policies with discriminatory effects
• C. Disparate treatment applies only to employment; disparate impact applies to housing
• D. Disparate treatment requires a class action; disparate impact does not

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that the difference rests on intent and effects. Disparate treatment involves deliberate, purposeful discrimination based on a protected characteristic—someone is treated differently specifically because of race, sex, national origin, etc. When a decision maker acts with that intent to discriminate, it’s disparate treatment. Disparate impact, on the other hand, focuses on the consequence of a neutral policy or practice. A policy that on its face applies equally to everyone can still harm a protected group if it has a significant adverse effect on that group, even without any proof of intent to discriminate. The claim looks at the policy’s effects, and the burden can shift to justify the policy as job-related or a business necessity (or to show there were less discriminatory alternatives). That distinction is why the correct statement is that disparate treatment is intentional discrimination, while disparate impact results from neutral policies with discriminatory effects. The other options mix up the ideas: one wrongly labels disparate treatment as unintentional, which isn’t accurate; another incorrectly confines disparate treatment to employment or misstates housing applicability; and another inaccurately ties one theory to class actions alone.

The main idea is that the difference rests on intent and effects. Disparate treatment involves deliberate, purposeful discrimination based on a protected characteristic—someone is treated differently specifically because of race, sex, national origin, etc. When a decision maker acts with that intent to discriminate, it’s disparate treatment.

Disparate impact, on the other hand, focuses on the consequence of a neutral policy or practice. A policy that on its face applies equally to everyone can still harm a protected group if it has a significant adverse effect on that group, even without any proof of intent to discriminate. The claim looks at the policy’s effects, and the burden can shift to justify the policy as job-related or a business necessity (or to show there were less discriminatory alternatives).

That distinction is why the correct statement is that disparate treatment is intentional discrimination, while disparate impact results from neutral policies with discriminatory effects. The other options mix up the ideas: one wrongly labels disparate treatment as unintentional, which isn’t accurate; another incorrectly confines disparate treatment to employment or misstates housing applicability; and another inaccurately ties one theory to class actions alone.