Disparate impact is basically a tool for treating any policy as racist if it can be shown to have a disparate impact on minorities. This backward logic is a serious problem because in the past it has meant that employers could get sued for requiring a High School diploma for a job. Because disparate impact.
In his angry ruling the Judge called the EEOC’s allegations “laughable,” “distorted,” “cherry-picked,” “worthless” and “an egregious example of scientific dishonesty.”
“Indeed, any rational employer in the United States should pause to consider the implications of actions of this nature brought based upon such inadequate data. By bringing actions of this nature, the EEOC has placed many employers in the ‘Hobson’s choice’ of ignoring criminal history and credit background, thus exposing themselves to potential liability for criminal and fraudulent acts committed by employees, on the one hand, or incurring the wrath of the EEOC for having utilized information deemed fundamental by most employers.
“Something more, far more, than what is relied upon by the EEOC in this case must be utilized to justify a disparate impact claim upon criminal history and credit checks. To require less, would be to condemn the use of common sense, and this is simply not what the discrimination laws of this country require,” says the ruling, in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the case.
Unfortunately common sense had been condemned a while back. Still it’s good to see that the Holder Jihad against civil rights is getting some pushback.
The point being made here is that the law functions as a Catch 22, giving employers a choice between facing liability from the government on discrimination charges and civil liability from customers. And employers are expected to choose the latter.