Coming soon: is requiring laborers to have high school diplomas race discrimination? (George's upcoming posts on statistics & disparate impact)
If Michael can do this so can I:
Here's a post that's just a "teaser" for what I plan to write about soon.
Michael's the expert on the expert statistical and validation analysis applicable to disparate impact cases. I used to understand the legal theory, and I'm boning up on it again, so I can present some posts that go back to the very first Supreme Court disparate impact case and trace the development of the major issues through discussion of the subsequent landmark cases.
Michael will continue merrily explaining the statistical concepts. Hopefully between the two of us a full picture of disparate impact will (eventually) emerge.
Coming soon: Griggs v. Duke and the high school diploma as a requirement for shoveling coal. Will it fly? Why or why not?
posted by George @ 7/28/2004 07:48:00 PM 
2 comments
2 Comments:
I'm nitpicking, but...
Griggs wasn't about high school diplomas. The case was about using a particular test (I forget the name offhand) to screen applications, and the passing score was normed against high school graduates. In other words, it was very possible to get a job at Duke Power without a high school diploma -- if you could pass the test. The disparate impact popped up because of test pass rates, not the actual number of people with or without high school diplomas. Duke Power lost the case strictly because there was no objective evidence whatsoever to suggest that high school level knowledge was necessary to perform the job duties -- it was a BFOQ issue.
The comparable issue would, perhaps, be requiring lawyers to get a score on the GRE Math section that is comparable to a master's degree in business administration graduate. Sure, many lawyers can do that -- but is that level of math aptitude really necessary to argue a case in a court of law or provide legal advice?
Told you I needed to bone up.
Actually, the use of a test as an alternative was a crude way of attempting to be fair, and probably helps show lack of discriminatory intent.
But as we shall see, with the disparate impact theory, discriminatory intent need not be proven (and lack thereof is no defense) thanks to a non-obvious and rather activist Supreme Court interpretation (IMHO).
Post a Comment
<< Home