Legal Process

Disparate Treatment Case Study

Disparate Treatment

The principles of disparate treatment or unequal treatment must be distinguished from the concepts of validation. A selection procedure even though validated against job performance in accordance with these guidelines; cannot be imposed upon members of a race, sex, ethnic group where other employees, applicants, or members have not been subjected to that standard. Disparate Treatment occurs when members of a race, sex or ethnic group have been denied the same employment, promotion, membership, or other employment opportunities as have been available to other employees or applicants. Those employees or applicants who have been denied equal treatment, because of prior discriminatory practices or policies, must at least be afforded the same opportunities as has existed for other employees or applicants during the period of discrimination.

Relevant Facts

ARCHOR, GERALD L. v. RIVERSIDE GOLF CLUB and WHITE, ROBERT

U.S. NO. 94 C 6518 (1997)

Explanation: About 90 pounds of meat vanished from a cooler at the Riverside Golf Club one evening. There were no signs of forced entry, and nothing else was missing; this was an inside job. Robert White, the Club's manager, concluded that heads would roll, and he feared that unless he found the culprit the severed neck would be his own. Four people in addition to White had keys to the meat cooler. Gerald Archor, the bartender, was responsible for locking the Club at night, and as the last employee on the premises he was in the best position to make off with such cumbersome booty. White discussed the theft with each of the other key holders sequentially, ending with Archor. During the meeting, Archor turned in his keys; he left the Club, never to return. Achor contends that White asked him to take the blame, because he was the oldest of the five key holders and had the best position, and that when he refused he was fired. White contends that Archor resigned to avoid investigation. This suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act turns on who told the truth.

The Ruling and Reasoning of the Court

According to the article found in FindLaw for Legal Professionals it was the plaintiffs burden to prove by preponderance of the evidence that he was discharged by Defendant because his age. In order to the jury to determine if the plaintiff was discharged by his age. The jury would had to decide whether the Defendant would have fired the Plaintiff had he been younger than forty and everything else had remained the same.

What role does the direct and indirect means of proving discrimination, with various "sub-elements". A judge might usefully direct the jury's interest in some issues that support an inference one way or the other, such as whether the managers made remarks implying antipathy to older workers, or the age of the Plaintiff's