Title VII of the Equal Opportunity Employment Code reads:
"...it shall NOT be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...”
That paragraph makes clear that an employer CAN legally apply different standards (different compensation, terms, conditions, privileges of employment etc. UNLESS they can be proven to the result of a deliberate intention to discriminate against any given group.
That makes clear that the burden of proof is on the person alleging discrimination and disparate impact (disproportionate results) do not, in and of themselves prove any kind of DELIBERATE, or intentional discrimination.
More importantly, that law goes on to state, “...nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
That paragraph makes clear that it is NOT unlawful for an employer “to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results IS NOT DESIGNED, INTENDED or USED to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
That also makes clear that the burden of proof is on the party alleging discrimination AND that disparate impact is, in and of itself, NOT proof of intentional or deliberate discrimination.
NONE of that implies, as some claim, that a “refusal to implement tests in which whites scored higher than minorities...was following law that were established by civil rights act.”
"...it shall NOT be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin...”
That paragraph makes clear that an employer CAN legally apply different standards (different compensation, terms, conditions, privileges of employment etc. UNLESS they can be proven to the result of a deliberate intention to discriminate against any given group.
That makes clear that the burden of proof is on the person alleging discrimination and disparate impact (disproportionate results) do not, in and of themselves prove any kind of DELIBERATE, or intentional discrimination.
More importantly, that law goes on to state, “...nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
That paragraph makes clear that it is NOT unlawful for an employer “to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results IS NOT DESIGNED, INTENDED or USED to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”
That also makes clear that the burden of proof is on the party alleging discrimination AND that disparate impact is, in and of itself, NOT proof of intentional or deliberate discrimination.
NONE of that implies, as some claim, that a “refusal to implement tests in which whites scored higher than minorities...was following law that were established by civil rights act.”
.
So, contrary to what many EEO and “Diversity specialists” claim, there is NO existing law states that "tests in which ANY ethnic/racial group (ie. whites) outscores another (ie. blacks) should be invalidated."
So, contrary to what many EEO and “Diversity specialists” claim, there is NO existing law states that "tests in which ANY ethnic/racial group (ie. whites) outscores another (ie. blacks) should be invalidated."
That would clearly violate the most basic principle of this government, equality before the law, so that claim (that tests that render disparate outcomes must be invalidated) is without any merit.
Tremendous find!
ReplyDeleteJMK, when have "diversity specialists" every cared about what the law actually says?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Seane-Anna here; they would argue that your interpretation of the law is wrong, or they would argue that the law is wrong, or they would argue that moonbats are an endangered feces...anything to avoid having to admit that their race-baiting argument simply does NOT promote fairness, equity or reward a prepared and qualified candidate as standards in an educated, civilized, rational society say they should.
ReplyDeletePromotion by guilt, regardless of the cost to those served...the Left's stock & trade.
THANKS Nick!
ReplyDeleteSeane-Anna,it's not about what "diversity specialists" care about at all. It's about the letter of the law.
As the law is written, disparate impact is not a legitimate legal defense for preferences.
The employment laws clearly state that the burden of proving deliberate intent is on the person alleging deliberate/intentional discrimination.
"Promotion by guilt, regardless of the cost to those served...the Left's stock & trade." (SF)
That is cerainly true SF, but it's virtually impossible for ANYONE to read Title VII of the Employment Law and claim what I've written is a misinterpretation of that law.
The PROBLEM, to date, then has been in its application by various judges....who THEMSELVES have apparently misinterpreted the law a clearly written.
I just hope the current SC overturns the New Haven decision and allows that test to stand.
JMK - My first visit here and I like what I see, I love your mission statement! On this post, I agree with Seane-Anna in that divesity specialists do not care one with about the law or Constitution. This administration doesn't either, hence the out and out obsession with Sotomayor's ethnicity. Great post, I'm following! Support my blog too BTW.
ReplyDeleteLCR
"The PROBLEM, to date, then has been in its application by various judges....who THEMSELVES have apparently misinterpreted the law a clearly written."
ReplyDeletebut don't you think it's also the current culture of 'sue first, prove later' that puts the judges in this position? not saying they're right to apply 'law' as they've done, but i think they use the current culture to do as they damned-well please.
i'm hoping sc does the same with the new haven case. from your lips to god's ear.
"but don't you think it's also the current culture of 'sue first, prove later' that puts the judges in this position? not saying they're right to apply 'law' as they've done, but i think they use the current culture to do as they damned-well please." (Heidianne)
ReplyDelete<
<
Yes, I largely agree with that Heidianne. While there are probably a lot of reasons for why so many judges barely tether their arguments to the Constitution, that is certainly a major one.
Thanks for stopping by LCR...and you're blog rolled, as well.
ReplyDeleteI like what I see at your place too.
I'm in the midsst of a whirlwind week, but I'll get by during the week.