News

Disparate-impact discrimination is a legal theory that holds that an entity may be discriminating unlawfully even though it has neutral rules if those rules have a disparate impact on a protected class. It is unintentional discrimination.

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that employees claiming they have been the victim of reverse discrimination don’t have additional hoops to jump through before getting their day in court.

The time to conduct a pay-equity audit is before employees file a suit. Conducted proactively, the audits can prevent thousands or even millions of dollars in damages and legal fees.

Sometimes, our differences may clash in ways that seem impossible to reconcile. It’s hard to make everyone happy. That doesn’t absolve employers from the obligation to try.

Earlier this year, the Littler Mendelson law firm surveyed 350 in-house lawyers, business executives and HR professionals and asked them what their greatest concerns were for managing employees this year. Here are their top three.

When young managers supervise older subordinates, the age differential can set up generational conflicts that cause legal trouble for employers. Those managers may be impatient for change and hold stereotypical views of what older workers can or cannot do. Prevent potential age bias claims by making sure all supervisors understand their responsibilities under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

No law specifically prohibits a workplace rule requiring employees to only speak English on the job. However, the EEOC is aggressively challenging English-only rules under Title VII, which bars national-origin discrimination.

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, it’s illegal to offer different benefits to workers ages 40 and older than you offer to younger employees. That’s true even if it costs you more to provide the same benefits to older workers.

Despite the carefully planned interview questions and hiring rubrics, hiring decisions often hinge on one factor above all others: whether the interviewer simply likes the candidate. This personality-based assessment not only undermines objective hiring practices but perpetuates workplace inequities that follow employees throughout their careers.

The order, issued April 23 and titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” contends that the threat of being sued for disparate-impact discrimination prevents employers from hiring the best-qualified candidates, promoting successful employees and generally running their businesses as they see fit.