How to Calculate Adverse Impact

PDF download Download Article
PDF download Download Article

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination (in employment or otherwise) based on certain characteristics of an individual that are protected by law: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. [1] [2] Because of this, legal action can be brought against an employer if its policies or selection practices have discriminatory effects unless the employer can show that it adopted the policy or practice in question to serve a legitimate business purpose. [3] To establish that an employer has violated Title VII—and prove a disparate-impact employment discrimination case—a plaintiff must demonstrate that a specific employment policy or practice caused an adverse impact on a protected class of individuals.

Part 1
Part 1 of 2:

Calculating Adverse Impact

PDF download Download Article
  1. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Office of Personnel Management have all adopted a test known as the "four-fifths rule" to calculate adverse impact. [4] This test compares the rates of selection for lesser-represented classes of individuals against the rate at which the most-represented group is selected. If any lesser-represented group has a selection rate that is less than four-fifths (or 80%) of the selection rate for the most-represented group, this can be used as evidence that discrimination—or adverse impact—is present. [5] [6]
    • So, if 90% of men who apply for a particular position are selected, and women are selected for the same position at a rate lower than 72% (80% of the highest selection rate, 90%), this would be evidence of adverse impact.
  2. To demonstrate adverse impact, a plaintiff must show that a particular policy or practice on the part of an employer results in a certain amount of discrimination towards a protected group. Therefore, your first step should be to identify the selection requirement that is responsible for the differing rates of selection.
    • By way of example, let's use a requirement that, to be a police officer in a particular city, an applicant must be able to lift at least 100 pounds. [7]
    Advertisement
  3. The next step in calculating adverse impact is to establish the selection rates for each group of individuals. This is done, for each group, by dividing the number of applicants selected for employment by the total number of applicants. These selection rates will then be compared in a later step.
    • Returning to our example, let's say 100 men and 100 women applied to be police officers in our hypothetical city. 80 men and 60 women were selected for the position.
    • So, the selection rate for men would be 80% (80/100) and the selection rate for women would be 60% (60/100).
  4. The next step in this process is to determine which group has the highest selection rate. This rate will be used as the point of comparison on which a determination of adverse impact can be made.
    • In our example, men have the highest selection rate for the police-office position, at 80%.
  5. Once you have calculated the selection rates and determined the group with the highest rate, the next step is to determine the "adverse impact ratio" for each other group, which represents how each group's selection rate compares with the most-represented group's rate of selection. This is done by comparing the selection rate for each group against that of the most-represented group, in which you are basically comparing the rate for the adverse group with the rate for the favored group by dividing the former by the latter.
    • In our example, we would divide the selection rate for women by the selection rate for men (.60/.80) and arrive at an adverse impact ratio for female applicants of 75%.
  6. Once you have calculated the adverse impact ratios for each group, evaluate each adverse impact ratio using the four-fifths rule. This is the simple part. If the adverse impact ratio for a particular group is less than 80%, according to the four-fifths rule this can be used as evidence that the employment policy, practice, or procedure is discriminatory in some way towards that group.
    • Basically, this means that a member of the less-represented group is selected for a position less than 80% of the time a member of the most-represented group is selected for the same position, which many federal agencies consider evidence that discrimination is taking place.
    • Returning to our example, the impact ratio for female applicants is 75%, which is less than 80%, meaning that the policy of requiring police officers to be able to lift at least 100 pounds seems to have an adverse impact on female applicants.
    • While the four-fifths rule is not controlling in court, it is consistently recognized by courts as a proper factor for courts to consider when determining if adverse impact is present in an employment-discrimination case. [8]
    7. Advertisement
Part 2
Part 2 of 2:

Proving Disparate Impact

PDF download Download Article
  1. The first step in proving a case of disparate-impact employment discrimination—where a plaintiff argues that an employer's practice or policy results in discrimination against a protected group—is to establish causation. That is, that the policy caused discrimination on the basis of a protected status (e.g., race, religion, or sex). [9]
    • There is no constant standard courts use to satisfy this causation requirement. [10] While many federal agencies have explicitly endorsed the four-fifths rule detailed above, other courts have rejected it. The only guidance given by the Supreme Court on this issue is that statistical disparities must be "sufficiently substantial" to the point that they suggest causation between the disputed employment practice and a lower selection rate for a protected group of individuals. [11]
    • So, if we continue with our above example, the selection criteria of requiring police officers to be able to lift at least 100 pounds would seem to have an adverse impact on female applicants according to the four-fifths rule.
  2. After the plaintiff has demonstrated the existence of adverse impact (e.g., by using the four-fifths rule), the employer is given the opportunity to show that the disputed policy or practice is job-related and serves some business necessity. [12] [13]
    • For example, the police department might claim that, in its view, police officers should be able to lift a minimum amount of weight because this signifies a certain amount of physical fortitude and conditioning necessary to carry out the duties of a police officer. Therefore, the requirement that all police officers be able to lift at least 100 pounds is not meant to discriminate against women, but is instead meant to ensure an optimal level of physical fitness throughout the city's police force.
  3. If the employer is able to provide a justification for the disputed practice, a plaintiff can still win in a disparate-impact case if the plaintiff can point to a different practice the employer could have used instead (but didn't) that would have resulted in less discrimination. [14] [15]
    • So, the police department in our example justified the 100-pound requirement by stating it wants its officers to maintain a certain level of physical fitness. A plaintiff could argue that, instead of using weightlifting ability as a measure of physical fitness, the department could have used a different, less-discriminatory measure, such as medical physical-fitness evaluation prior to beginning employment, or mandatory participation in physical-fitness training after accepting employment as a police officer.
    4. Advertisement

Expert Q&A

Ask a Question
200 characters left
Include your email address to get a message when this question is answered.
Submit
      Advertisement

      Tips

      • When using the four-fifths rule to calculate adverse impact, each group involved must constitute at least 2% of the labor or applicant pool.
        Thanks
        Helpful 1 Not Helpful 0
      • The four-fifths rule originates from the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures , jointly adopted in 1978 by the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, and the Equal Opportunity Commission to establish consistent standards for employers to use when making selection decisions.
        Thanks
        Helpful 0 Not Helpful 1
      Submit a Tip
      All tip submissions are carefully reviewed before being published
      Name
      Please provide your name and last initial
      Submit
      Thanks for submitting a tip for review!
      Advertisement

      Warnings

      • Scholars have argued that the four-fifths test does not work as well when analyzing smaller sample sizes, and may indicate adverse impact where there is none or fail to identify adverse impact when it is actually present. Always try to use the largest sample size available.
        Thanks
        Helpful 7 Not Helpful 0
      Advertisement

      References

      1. ↑ http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=ilj
      2. ↑ http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm
      3. ↑ http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=ilj
      4. ↑ http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=ilj
      5. ↑ http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=ilj
      6. ↑ https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1607.4
      7. ↑ http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=ilj
      8. ↑ http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=ilj
      9. ↑ http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=ilj
      1. ↑ http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/may08/e2attach.pdf
      2. ↑ http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=ilj
      3. ↑ http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/may08/e2attach.pdf
      4. ↑ http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=ilj
      5. ↑ http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/may08/e2attach.pdf
      6. ↑ http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=ilj

      About This Article

      In other languages
      Thanks to all authors for creating a page that has been read 121,565 times.

      Reader Success Stories

      • Margie Kelly

        Mar 19, 2019

        "My coworker and I are studying to take the PHR/SPHR exam, and we have been struggling to make sense of the 4/5th ..." more
      More reader stories Hide reader stories
      Share your story

      Did this article help you?

      Advertisement