Explainer: Why Trump is ending enforcement of civil rights laws that ban 'disparate impact'
(Reuters) - President Donald Trump recently ordered federal agencies, opens new tab not to enforce laws that prohibit policies and practices with discriminatory impacts that are often unintended. Curbing so-called "disparate impact" liability, which is common in employment-related cases, removes a critical tool the government has used for decades to also police discrimination in housing, education, lending and other areas.
WHAT IS DISPARATE IMPACT LIABILITY?
Numerous federal laws, some dating to the years after the Civil War, prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion and other protected traits. Courts long understood discrimination to be an intentional act, but that began to change after the adoption of the landmark Civil Rights Act in 1964.
The U.S. Supreme Court created a new path to hold employers liable for discrimination in the 1971 case Griggs v. Duke Power. The court said that otherwise neutral employment practices can violate the Civil Rights Act when they disproportionately affect a protected group and are not demonstrably related to job performance.
Congress in 1991 amended the Civil Rights Act to explicitly prohibit the practices covered by the Supreme Court decision. Many experts have credited those changes for helping to spur companies to track the impact of their employment policies on protected groups, a now commonplace practice.
WHY DOES TRUMP OPPOSE DISPARATE IMPACT LIABILITY?
Trump in an April 23 executive order said disparate impact litigation is one of the tools used by a "pernicious movement" to replace merit-based decisionmaking with a focus on diversity.
The Republican president has been a vocal critic of workplace diversity, equity and inclusion policies and has launched an aggressive effort to eradicate them from the government and the private sector.
During Trump's first term, some federal agencies considered rolling back disparate impact regulations. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in 2020 eliminated Obama-era rules barring housing practices with disparate impacts on protected groups, but that was paused by a court and later reversed by the Biden administration.
Trump in April's executive order said the threat of disparate impact litigation prevents businesses from making decisions based on merit and skill, and that the legal theory wrongly presumes that unlawful discrimination exists "where there are any differences in outcomes" among different groups.
WHAT DO LEGAL ADVOCATES SAY?
Legal advocates point out that plaintiffs using disparate impact analysis are generally required to show statistically significant differences that cannot be explained by legitimate, non-discriminatory factors in order to win disparate impact lawsuits.
Many legal experts and civil rights advocates say disparate impact liability is a crucial tool for uncovering systemic discrimination that may be unintentional but affects workers and communities. They say it holds employers and others accountable when they fail to change their practices and that the latest order risks exacerbating disparities.
WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF DISPARATE IMPACT?
Even the most routine policies can have disparate impacts on specific groups. Many companies stopped administering physical fitness tests or changed eligibility requirements for jobs after a surge in lawsuits during the Obama administration claiming such policies discriminated against women and older or disabled workers.
Other employers have been sued for refusing to hire people with criminal records, which can have a disparate impact on Black and Hispanic job applicants. Advocates argue that Black and Hispanic people are disproportionately convicted of crimes due to inequities in the criminal justice system.
A policy with a disparate impact can be legal when it is necessary to operate a business. For example, law firms can require applicants for jobs as lawyers to have law degrees and banks can deny loans to people with low credit scores even if those policies disproportionately exclude members of certain groups.
WHAT DOES TRUMP'S ORDER DO?
Trump declared a government-wide policy "to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible" and directed federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of disparate impact laws.
Trump told the heads of federal agencies, including the Attorney General, the chairs of the Equal Employment Opportunity and Federal Trade commissions, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, not to pursue cases attempting to hold businesses and others liable for disparate impact discrimination.
Trump also told federal agencies to evaluate whether existing cases and settlements that rely on disparate impact claims comport with his order. That means some employers, schools, banks and others could be released from settlements they entered into years ago, including requirements to adopt anti-discrimination policies and submit to outside monitoring.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Trump's order will likely lead the agencies to drop some existing cases and settlements, and deter them from bringing any lawsuits or brokering settlements involving disparate impact claims.
Trump's order may face legal challenges by groups and individuals who have filed discrimination complaints with federal agencies, likely claiming that Trump exceeded his authority by issuing it. Many of the more than 140 executive orders issued by Trump since January have been challenged in court by nonprofits, unions, workers and Democratic state officials, among others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
David Lammy refuses to say whether US attack on Iran was ‘right' or ‘legal'
Foreign secretary David Lammy has refused to defend Donald Trump 's attack on Iran and confirm it was either legal or even 'the right thing to do'. In an awkward interview on BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, Mr Lammy was asked four times if the attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was legal. It comes after Donald Trump's regime conducted airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, despite Sir Keir Starmer pushing for de-escalation in the preceding days. The questions followed reports that UK attorney general Lord Hermer has suggested it would not be legal for the UK to launch such attacks. Radio 4 Today presenter Justin Webb asked him four times if the attack was legal with the foreign secretary avoiding the answer. 'We were not involved, it is for the Americans to discuss those legal issues," he responded repeatedly. The issue is important because of fears that it undermines the case against Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. However, Mr Lammy was not even able to answer whether the attack by US B-2 stealth bombers was even 'the right thing to do'. Mr Webb asked him: "Was the (US) military action the right thing to do?" Mr Lammy avoided the question, answering: "I've said that we weren't involved in the military action." Webb asked again: "Was it the right thing to do?" Lammy responded: "What I've said is that ultimately this can only be dealt with in diplomacy." The foreign secretary was not the only senior minister to refuse to answer difficult questions about the rapidly changing international crisis in the Middle East. Earlier, armed forces minister Luke Pollard claimed it is 'not for [him] to comment' on US action in the Middle East, refusing to say whether Britain is supportive of US strikes in Iran. Asked whether the UK was disappointed or pleased about the military intervention, Luke Pollard told Sky News: 'Well, it's not for me to comment on the particular US action, but we're assessing the battle damage at the moment to understand the true extent of the strikes. 'But our focus and the work that we are doing in conjunction with our US allies as well as those across Europe, is to put the pressure on the Iranian regime to get back to negotiating because a diplomatic solution is how we bring this crisis to an end.' When it was put to Mr Pollard that it was specifically his role to comment on military action around the world, he replied: 'I'm not going to be able to comment on that question, but what we can say is that we were not involved in the military action that the US took.' He added that Britain's focus was also on putting 'pressure on the Iranian regime to get back to negotiations because a diplomatic solution is how we bring this crisis to an end, with Iran not able to create a nuclear weapon, handing over their nuclear materials that they possess, and giving commitments that they won't threaten regional stability by developing a nuclear weapon in the future'. Over the weekend, the US attacked Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz which are linked to Iran's nuclear programme. Ahead of the strikes, the prime minister had been calling for calm, saying he has 'no doubt' that Mr Trump backs the G7's call for a de-escalation of tensions in the Middle East. It is understood there was no British involvement in the action but the government was informed before the US strikes. After the strikes took place, Sir Keir backed Mr Trump's administration describing Iran's nuclear programme as a 'grave threat to international security'. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat', he added. But he later warned there was a risk of the Middle East crisis spiralling beyond the region and urged all sides to return to negotiations.
Reuters
30 minutes ago
- Reuters
European shares slip as US strikes on Iran fuel Middle East escalation fears
June 23 (Reuters) - European shares fell on Monday after the U.S. decision to join Israel in striking Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend heightened investor fears of an escalation in the Middle East conflict. The pan-European STOXX 600 index (.STOXX), opens new tab was down 0.3% at 535.11 points, as of 0712 GMT. Other major regional indexes also traded lower. Iran and Israel exchanged air and missile strikes on Monday, as global tensions rose over Tehran's expected response to a U.S. attack on its nuclear facilities over the weekend. In a post to the Truth Social platform on Sunday, U.S. President Donald Trump questioned the possibility of regime change in Iran. Markets fear that an Iranian retaliation may include a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil artery. Bucking the sombre mood, the oil and gas sector (.SXEP), opens new tab led gains in the regional index, rising 0.7%, as oil prices jumped on fears of supply disruption following the weekend strike. Travel and leisure stocks (.SXTP), opens new tab lost 0.8%. Among stocks, Spectris (SXS.L), opens new tab rose 14.6% after private equity firm Advent said it will acquire the scientific instruments maker in a deal valued at 4.4 billion pounds ($5.91 billion). ($1 = 0.7443 pounds)
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump will not lose Maga support over bombing Iran. This is why
'I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?' Donald Trump boasted at an event in Iowa during his first campaign for president in 2016. 'It's, like, incredible.' Will he lose his Maga base after bombing Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities? Clearly he doesn't think so. On June 19 the president told journalists: 'My supporters are for me. My supporters are America First and Make America Great Again. My supporters don't want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon.' In the aftermath of the attack he ordered on Iran on June 21, Trump likely has Fifth-Avenue-style immunity from mutinies by most of his conservative populist supporters, in spite of their scepticism toward overseas military interventions. He is helped by the fact that the pundits and elected representatives who claim to speak for his Maga followers do not agree. There are hawks like the TV and radio pundit Mark Levin and advocates of restraint like Georgia representative Marjorie Taylor Green. Tucker Carlson himself engaged in a harsh debate with Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz about U.S. policy toward Israel and the Middle East. Fox News leans toward the pro-war side. His former aide Steve Bannon, host of the popular podcast 'Bannon's War Room,' whom Trump invited to the White House before the attack, has urged restraint. But even without these divisions over Middle Eastern strategy on the populist Right, Trump has little reason to fear a significant loss of support. The reason is that Maga is not a creed or a movement with many leaders who share a common and well-understood set of principles; it is a cult of personality around a single charismatic leader. Charismatic presidents with cults of personality have existed in America's past. Their ranks include Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. (Lincoln and Kennedy were only deified in the public mind after their assassinations). Because he served an unprecedented four terms, FDR showed how powerful a cult of personality can be. Between his first inauguration in 1933 and his death during World War II in 1945, he abandoned or reversed policies many times. As a candidate in 1932, FDR denounced President Herbert Hoover for the 'reckless growth of government.' Once in power, however, he dramatically expanded the federal government's role in the economy and society. He promised to keep the U.S. out of World War II but made the U.S. a de facto co-belligerent of the UK and Soviet Union even before Pearl Harbour. He was a deficit hawk at times and a deficit dove at others. He backed anti-trust reformers in the 1930s then reined in government attacks on big businesses whose help was needed during the war. In spite of his inconsistency, FDR retained the loyalty of millions of Americans, particularly members of the working class majority. Trump's base, like that of FDR, is found among working-class whites, along with a growing number of working-class Hispanics and blacks. They don't follow disputes about the questionable constitutionality of many of his executive orders, but they approve of his campaigns to enforce border laws and take on the oppressive woke Thought Police in their journalistic and academic bastions. Charisma cannot be passed on when a charismatic president leaves office, as Jackson's successor Martin van Buren, TR's successor William Howard Taft, and FDR's successor Harry Truman found out. A cult of personality is a kind of celebrity worship, not a body of political or economic principles. On May 23, at an investment conference in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, Trump echoed the themes of the anti-interventionist Right and the anti-imperialist Left while condemning previous American administrations. 'In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. And the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.' Now he has carried out the long-sought goal of the neoconservatives who despised him and has bombed Iran; something that even George W. Bush refused to do. If Trump commits U.S. troops to an open-ended war with Iran, rather than limiting hostilities with Iraq to air strikes, some of his followers no doubt will defect, accusing him of betraying them by launching a new Forever War in the Middle East like Bush's Iraq war. Most of his followers, however, will stick with him – not only because of the rally-round-the-flag effect in war-time, but also because their loyalty is to him, not to a particular domestic agenda or foreign policy. Meanwhile, conservative pundits who fear losing access and favour no doubt will try to rationalise the apparent inconsistency of his policy toward Iran shows that Trump is playing a brilliant game of three-dimensional chess – 'peace through strength,' or something like that. In 1077, following his excommunication, Emperor Henry IV of the Holy Roman Emperor journeyed through the snow to Canossa Castle in Italy to beg forgiveness from Pope Gregory VII. On June 18 of this year, before the bombing and after he denounced the Trump administration for being 'complicit' in Israel's attacks on Iran, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson spoke to the president. Trump told reporters: 'He called and apologised the other day because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong, and I appreciated that.' Following the strikes on Iran, Republican Representative Thomas Massie denounced them as unconstitutional and unnecessary: 'There was no imminent threat to the United States which is what would authorise that.' On Truth Social, his personal social media platform, Trump excommunicated him: 'Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not Maga, even though he likes to say he is. Actually Maga doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him.' Massie's excommunication, like Carlson's metaphorical road to Canossa, demonstrates that in the Church of Maga Donald Trump is both Emperor and Pope.
