The US Department of Justice is taking aim at a longstanding legal doctrine used by left-leaning advocacy groups to challenge policies they deem discriminatory: disparate impact.
A Threat to a Powerful Tool
The DOJ issued an opinion to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission last week, stating that its disparate-impact liability guidelines are unconstitutional.
The disparate-impact doctrine has been a vital tool for activists and lawyers who argue that policies, even if not intentionally discriminatory, can still have disparate effects on different groups – often, they claim, on minority groups.
This doctrine gained significant traction in the 1970s, particularly with the court case **Griggs v. Duke Power Company** (1971), where the Supreme Court ruled that a company’s policy requiring a high school diploma as a condition of employment had a disparate impact on African-American applicants.
A Shift in the Balance of Power
The DOJ’s shift in stance may signal a significant change in the balance of power in cases involving disparate impact.
Traditionally, courts have used disparate impact to hold companies or institutions accountable for policies that appear neutral on their face but have a disproportionate effect on certain groups.
However, the DOJ’s new opinion now suggests that this doctrine may be unconstitutional, as it could lead to “arbitrary and unjust” results.
What This Means
**For individuals and businesses:** This move may limit the ability of advocacy groups to challenge policies they deem discriminatory, even if they are not intentionally so.
**For civil rights groups:** The new stance may make it more difficult to prove disparate impact, potentially reducing the number of cases brought under this doctrine.
The implications of this shift in the DOJ’s stance are still unclear, but one thing is certain: the future of disparate-impact liability guidelines is now under scrutiny.
