| |
Discrimination is a complex issue. Few general statements are apt, since each alleged case is unique. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted to prevent job discrimination on the basis of sex, race or ethnicity, says that patterns of employment can prove that discrimination is occurring. If a company employs minorities or women in such small numbers that the pattern could not have occurred by chance, discrimination exists and is assumed to be intentional. That principle was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1977.2 The court considers statistical evidence adequate to prove discrimination, since: “It is ordinarily to be expected that nondiscriminatory hiring practices will in time result in a workforce more or less representative of the racial and ethnic composition of the population in the community from which employees are hired. Evidence of long-lasting and gross disparity between the composition of a workforce and that of the general population thus may be significant even though [the Civil Rights Act] imposes no requirement that a workforce mirror the general population."3
A pattern of discrimination must measure up to a statistical test – meaning the disparity has to be very great – before it is considered proof. We cannot judge whether hiring patterns in Indianapolis meet that requirement, but we can provide evidence that local employment patterns are not “more or less representative of the racial and ethnic composition of the population.”
2 Hazelwood School District v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977).
|
|
