Concept of Disparate Impact and prove of Disparate Impact
Disparate impact refers to unintentional discrimination that is driven by a cultural narrative that regards particular behavior, practice, rule or way of operation as ‘acceptable’ to all, despite being disproportionate to some people within the group. The context of such acceptance is usually driven by culture or social values that accentuate the behavior/practice as one that is justifiable among every member of such a society, without trying to disintegrate how it affects one group as compared to another ( Jerrold, 2005) . When a disparate impact occurs within a workplace, it is always structured to favor the majority with disregard of the minority and how they feel about such a practice of behavior. Disparate impact within an employment setting accrues to employment discrimination as federal laws prohibit any form of discrimination based on pay, genetic information, race national origin, color, disability age, religion, or sex.
In Robison v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. case, disparate impact is evidenced in an ‘accepted’ way of thought, behavior, and formulation of a work environment that favored men and disregarded women. First, according to JSI, mirrored by its employees, the working environment is regarded as a ‘boys club’ that is ‘more or less a man’s world,’ despite the fact that JSI had, within its ranks, a number of women craft workers such as Robinson. This meant women who worked there, were expected per se, to regiment their way of behavior to ‘fit’ into this manly concave.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, JSI management accepted and to some point allowed and encouraged the advancement of male narrative through its failure to ban the display of pictures of nude or partially nude women within and about JSI working environment. This was best captured by the two plaques of naked women that were affixed in wood and varnished, that were introduced as evidence that had been on display on JSI workshops for years. The fact that these plaques and pictures lay on display, without management interference for years, shows that JSI management allowed and even encouraged androcentric attitudes within the workplace with little regard as to how the few women who worked there felt.
Thirdly, advertising calendars that only featured women in various possess of undressing and suggestive/submissive possess were bought and delivered to JSI. The specificity of what those calendars featured and the fact that JSI had for a long time been purchasing those calendars as the ‘preferred’ option, despite there being an array of other types of calendars featuring different subjects, captured the ‘accepted’ narrative of JSI being a male society ( Kallio, 1995) .
Court Conclusion as to acts by Coworkers Constituted a claim of \"Sexual Harassment\"
The court concluded that acts by coworkers constituted claims of sexual harassment if they fulfilled the five elements of sexual discrimination within the workplace. The first element is that the plaintiff belongs to a protected category that disadvantaged them against the dominant category. JSI environment was male-dominated, with only a few females’ workers thus categorizing Robinson as belonging to a protected group. The second element is that the plaintiff must be a subject of unwelcome sexual harassment, which was captured in the lucid demeaning jokes and remarks directed to her by her male coworkers. The third element is such that such harassment must be purely based on sex, which was evidenced by submissions made by females working there. The fourth element is that such harassment when complained affected a privilege, a term or a condition of employment, seen by how women like Robinson were treated if they complained about possible sexual harassment. The fifth element is that the defendant knew about the existence of such a harassment issue and failed to take any action thus prompting action by the plaintiff. JSI management by accepting and allowing the male-dominant environment that overlooks the presence and feeling of females workers.
Situations the Court Explained as Qualifying as Sexual Harassment
The court demanded that Robison ‘must show that, but for the fact of sex, she would not have been the object of harassment’ in ascertaining that acts performed by her coworkers constituted to sexual harassment. Robinson coworkers behavior in contorting an ‘only male’ narrative in the kind of language they used towards her and her female colleagues, the accentuated expectation of tolerance of male egotism and the sexually explicit tone created in the features like ‘men-only’ signs, dirty language, and intolerance of her complaints against discriminatory overtures constituted sexual harassment.
The court also demanded that Robinson’s coworkers’ sexual behavior towards her and her female colleagues must be such that depicts that it is purely driven by the fact that they are of a different gender. If such behavior does not justify its occurrence is instigated by the presence of a woman, the court would rule out sexual harassment as having happened. When Robison complained to her supervisor about her workplace being “explicitly dirty” due to the demeaning words and explicit pictures displayed around, she was transferred to another area despite her not proving unable to work in that place or failing to fulfil its requirement. This, together with other instances shows that sex was the primary reason Robinson and her coworkers were treated differently and not because they couldn’t work as better as the men could.
The court also required that such behavior, despite it being normal, disproportionately offended one gender as compared to another. The requirement captures the inhibitory element of discriminatory behavior that arrays to the female gender that they do not belong and that they can only fit within that specific workplace if they can conform to those identities created in that environment. The presence of nude pictures and explicit magazines around the workplace would not, per se, constitute discriminatory behavior. However, the fact that management knew about it and to some extent encouraged it, coupled by admission by male employees that the presence of male nude pictures would be regarded as ‘weird’ and unconventional captured the demeaning aspect of such behavior which expected females to conform to set sexual stereotypes, thus constituting to sexual harassment ( JUSTIA) .
References
Jerrold, L. (2005). Disparate treatment v disparate impact. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 128 (1), 133-135. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.013
JUSTIA. (n.d.). Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 760 F. Supp. 1486 (M.D. Fla. 1991). Retrieved from https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/760/1486/1420870/
Kallio, B. R. (1995). Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards. Encyclopedia of Education Law . doi:10.4135/9781412963916.n315
