Disparate Impact/Disparate Impact Case Study Analysis
...d perceptions” of discrimination. The case was than looked at through the strengths and merits of the respondents’ statistical evidence. Statistical evidence included the fact that black special agents received $3,000 less in their salary than their white counterparts, initial GS Grade levels were considerably less than their white cohorts, and promotions were fewer for black agents than white agents despite the same number of year’s seniority. After reviewing this evidence the court ruled on the basis of the evidence that petitioners had violated Title VII (Disparate Treatment) with regard to salary disparities between black and white agents, grade at entry level, work assignments, discipline, supervisory evaluations, and promotions. The judgment was affirmed and the DEA was ordered to make restitution and to restructure the government agency to ensure compliance with Title VII regulations. Since my place of employment is a private hospital this case did not directly affect me, however; indirectly it affected the entire nation. To me the major implication of the case was that disparate treatment which is a violation of Title VII will not be tolerated in either private industry OR the Government. The ruling held that the government agency was accountable and must adhere to the same anti-discrimination standards set forth by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The general consensus with many in the public is that government agencies are usually non culpable and rarely adhere to the same rules, regulations and standards that are set forth for the rest of the public. This ruling proved otherwise and in my opinion was a welcome relief. Disparate impact cases can decidedly be trickier to pass judgment on because there is lack of discriminatory intent. In the case of Azel P. Smith, Et Al., Petitioners v. The City of Jackson, Mississippi, Et. Al. this statement is evident. On October of 1998 the city of Jackson, Mississippi proposed a plan to give all city employees a raise. The sole purpose of this endeavor was to “attract and retain qualified people, provide incentive for performance, maintain competitiveness with other public sector agencies and ensure equitable compensation to all employees regardless of age, sex, race and/or disability." (Find Law, 2005). Starting salaries for younger officers were increased to match those of their Regional counterparts; this meant that those who had five years or less tenure received proportionately greater raises than those who held seniority. A group of older officer petitioners filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), claimed that the City deliberately discriminated against them because of their age and that they were “adversely affected” by the plan to increase salaries because of their age (disparate impact claim). The ruling was as follows: The case was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court. “The ...