Talk:Disparate treatment

Removal of Disparate Impact and Griggs Discussion
First, I think the priority level of this page should be much higher since this is the primary theory in employment law, and is essential to the understanding of the other theories.

Second, I think the first section needs to be removed. It starts out with a correct sentence, but the second sentence and the rest of the section is incorrect. It reads:

"This doctrine was read into the act in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which interpreted the Act to prohibit, in some cases, employers' facially neutral practices that, in fact, are "discriminatory in operation." The Griggs Court stated that the "touchstone" for disparate-impact liability is the lack of "business necessity": "If an employment practice which operates to exclude [minorities] cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited."[3] If an employer met its burden by showing that its practice was job-related, the plaintiff was required to show a legitimate alternative that would have resulted in less discrimination.[4] . . . . "

This theory was not "Read into the act in Griggs." This theory is the Act. It was the theory that Congress established with the Act. DISPARATE IMPACT was read into the Act in Griggs. Which I would support with cites, except for the fact that the section here continues by discussing disparate impact. Therefore, I can't seem to understand why, if its so clear this section is talking about a completely different theory, why is it included in disparate treatment? For anyone who isn't an expect in the field is going to be really confused and believe they are interchangeable. They are not. Disparate treatment looks at intentional discrimination and disparate impact looks at unintentional discrimination. Completely different tests and cases. (Griggs is disparate impact. McDonnell Douglass is disparate treatment).

In conclusion, I would remove this entire section except the first sentence. It could be moved to the "disparate impact" page, since it is a good summary for that theory. I would remove it myself, but I'm afraid if I just remove it, someone will just undo it immediately. So I writing here to explain why this is completely wrong and lobby for its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.196.130 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)