Seven years ago, a group of black employees filed suit alleging the Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany (MCLB) discriminated against them. The story contains no details about the allegations, although it notes the case involved “more than 387,000 documents totaling more than 810,000 pages; interviews of numerous witnesses; extensive written discovery; and depositions of approximately 20 fact and expert witnesses.” (Source)
I’d really like to get a copy of the group’s allegations against the MCLB. Based on the context of the story, it sounds like a case of unintentional discrimination. The court approved a settlement in September, and a final settlement agreement was executed in October. Curiously, the settlement “is not an admission of liability or fault.” Why not? From the article:
“Plaintiffs’ counsel asserted that the merit-staffing process had disparate impact on African-American applicants. The disparate-impact theory of discrimination addresses employment practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected minority. Thus disparate-impact claims do not involve the issue of intentional discrimination.”
So, the group claims MCLB’s hiring and training practices had a disparate impact on black employees, and the terms of the settlement no doubt will entail changing hiring and training practices. You don’t have to hold a degree in rocket surgery to guess how these practices will change to eliminate disparate impact. But let’s pretend such a degree is required and take our best guess. Employers may drop standards for everyone (not likely) or assess blacks on a lower standard than everyone else.
If employers choose the latter, they may avoid disparate impact lawsuits, but could face a disparate treatment scenario similar to Ricci v. DeStefano. The U.S. Supreme Court found that New Haven intentionally discriminated against white firefighters to avoid liability for unintentional discrimination against black firefighters.
Comments on this entry are closed.