Monday, August 26, 2019

Ricci v. DeStefano Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Ricci v. DeStefano - Essay Example disparate impact† in relation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, arguments that urge courts to be "color blind" in their deliberations, and the concept of "narrowly tailored" court-ordered remedies for discrimination. â€Å"Disparate impact† can be defined as a theory used to prove discrimination in employment. It forbids employers from using certain employment practices that are non-discriminatory in their intentions, but can still disproportionately affect people belonging to certain groups with regards to race, age, sex, ethnicity or disability. Fish, (2009) argues that although the law considers the use of tests to evaluate job applicants a useful measure, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not allow use of tests solely to promote firefighters unless it relates to job performance. For instance, the test used by the city of New Haven, did not test a firefighter’s ability to lead or supervise others in the line of duty; hence, caused a disparate impact. â€Å"Color blind† refers to making judicial decisions without regards to race. According to Fish (2009), the race of the federal judges is likely to affect the result of cases especially in issues relating to racial harassment in the workplace. Thus, the courts are urged to be color blind in order to have an efficient judicial decision making process that does not discriminate individuals based on race. â€Å"Narrowly tailored† refers to drafting something in order to meet the needs of a certain party. In this case, â€Å"narrowly tailored† refers to the ability of the court to draft certain concepts in the case in order to provide a solution to discrimination. For instance, the court rejected New Haven’s reasoning claiming that the fear of legal action cannot be used as an excuse by an employer’s dependence on race to the disadvantage of other firefighters who performed well in the test and qualified to be promoted (Fish, 2009). This court decision goes against Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.