This Month Only! >> $20 off and a FREE SHRM tote with your membership and code TOTE2018!
Sign up for free email newsletters and get more SHRM content delivered to your inbox.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco must face federal age bias claims by an online applicant repeatedly rejected for sales positions because screening devices used in the hiring process disproportionately impacted older applicants generally and the lawsuit claimant in particular, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.
The literal wording of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is that only intentional job discrimination subjects covered employers to job bias liability. Nonetheless, the very first Title VII case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), held that employment practices that are neutral on their face can create liability if they have a greater negative effect on a protected class than on other employees. Duke Power implemented a requirement that to advance into high-paying jobs, employees had to either possess a high school diploma or pass a general intelligence test. Black employees were disproportionately affected because as a group they were less educated and less able to pass the screening test. Duke Power could not show a business necessity for the diploma or test-passing requirement because white employees hired before the implementation of these screening devices sometimes possessed neither of these credentials yet performed satisfactorily.
Federal appellate courts have previously applied this “adverse impact” theory, also known as “disparate impact” to 1) applicants for employment and 2) employees claiming age discrimination. The court here applied the theory to applicants claiming age discrimination.
The employer utilized selection criteria in evaluating applicants for sales positions that included instructing hiring managers to target candidates two to three years out of college and to avoid hiring candidates with eight to ten years of prior sales experience. The claimant in this case was 49 years of age, with corresponding career experience. He was rejected for hire five different times.
The court held that although some over-age-40 applicants might be only two to three years out of college and have no more than eight to ten years of sales experience, statistical evidence showed the obvious: that these selection criteria had a much greater adverse impact on older employees. The employer argued that it had imposed these requirements to “grow its own” sales force, but that argument did not carry the day. There was no proof that incumbent salespeople with more years out of college and greater sales experience could not perform satisfactorily. Logically, the contrary is more often the case.
Villarreal v. Reynolds Tobacco Co. LLC, 11th Cir., No. 15-10602 (Nov. 30, 2015).
Professional Pointer: This case illustrates that “disparate treatment” analysis may not be the end of the necessary inquiry. Even if an employment policy is applied across the board and is neutral on its face, it may still be unlawful due to “disparate impact” analysis if not justified by business necessity.
Philip M. Van Hoy is an attorney with Van Hoy Reutlinger Adams & Dunn, the Worklaw® Network member firm in Charlotte, N.C.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 10,000 companies