However, don't you agree that it would be a great help if it were so
routinely applied, and supported by the Court? As it is we will need to
go to; Congress to clear this rubbish out of the way now, and we haven't
got a crack at that this term.
Linda Purrington
<lpurring@earthlink.net>
Peggy Weeks wrote:
FYI:
Disparate impact has not been routinely applied to sex discrimination
cases under either Title IX or Title IX. Mostly, it has (in the past) been
applied to race discrimination cases.
Peggy Weeks
<mdweeks@earthlink.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Purrington" <lpurring@earthlink.net>
Subject: [EDEQUITY] Disparate impact v. Intentional discrimination
The April 24, 2001, U.S. Supreme Court case, Alexander v. Sandoval,
limiting scope of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to exclude
challenges to discrimination based on disparate impact (allowing only
arguments based on intentional discrimination); with serious
implications for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. It is
extremely hard to prove intentional discrimination; it is relatively
simple to prove disparate impact. (Gebser and Davis raised the standard
of proof--out of reach of most girls and women, who deal daily with
sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination such as academic and
athletic discrimination. WOMEN NEED THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT NOW.)
Excellent article by Linda Greenhouse on the Alexander case decision:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/25/national/25DISC.html?searchpv=site03
The decision for Alexander and Sandoval appears at (make sure you getthe
whole address into the find window):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000
&invol=99-1908
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:16:46 EDT