| | I copied the title directly from the article. There were a few parts that seemed biased.
The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.
I thought this was a gem. Shouldn't it always be hard to prove something when there is no evidence? Is discrimination something you can do unintentionally?
Anyway, I was thinking about this decision and whether it made things better or worse. The majority opinion said:
"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."
So the employer can't hedge against litigation. But the Supreme Court didn't seem to do anything to protect the employer from litigation. They just declared you can't make a (politically) wise decision to avoid being sued.
From the business point of view, it seems like you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. You can still be sued for discrimination even though you weren't discriminating. And if you do discriminate to avoid those lawsuits, you can get sued for discriminating! How do you avoid it?
Did this ruling just create a lose-lose situation for the employer? Or will this have some kind of actual effect on preventing discrimination lawsuits?
|
|
