What I am curious about is this: if it were shown that a policy had a
disparate impact then the agency/corporation/whatever would know
that it was causing a disparate impact whether that was the original
intent or not. Therefore, wouldn't it be intentional discrimination if
they
continued with their policy?
If it were pointed out that some proposed policy or legislation would have
a disparate impact and the body went ahead with it anyway, wouldn't
that be intentional discrimination if indeed it proved to have a disparate
impact?
Also, if a body had a policy that was similar to another body that had
a policy that had been proven to have a disparate impact - perhaps even
found to be illegal in some earlier court case prior to the case in
question -wouldn't that be intentional discrimination?
Liz Homer
MI NOW Education Task Force
----- Original Message -----
From: "Linda Purrington" <lpurring@earthlink.net>
The story is about the Alexander v. Sandoval case decided by the U.S.
Supreme Court on April 24. ........The Court has with this
decision impaired the rights of girls/women by suggesting that only
intentional discrimination, not disparate impact, will be an acceptable
level of proof in the future.
U.S. Supreme Court Severely Limits Civil Rights Law ? 4/25/01
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=5462
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:16:47 EDT