Latest News

US Transport agency repeals civil rights regulation with 'disparate impacts'

The U.S. Transportation Department announced Wednesday that it will rescind a part of its civil rights regulations, which prohibits conduct that may have an unintentional "disparate impact".

Donald Trump has ordered that federal agencies not enforce laws prohibiting policies and practices that have discriminatory effects that are often unintended.

Sean Duffy, U.S. Transportation secretary, said that the department's regulations "prohibits only intentional discrimination and not conduct or activities which have a disparate effect", adding USDOT would not take action regarding disparate-impact liabilities.

By limiting the so-called disparate-impact liability, which is commonly used in employment-related matters, the government can no longer use a tool that it has been using for years to police discrimination, including in housing, education and lending.

FEDERAL DISCRIMINATION ACTS DATE BACK AS FAR AS THE CIVIL WAR

The Justice Department stated on Tuesday that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's legal advice to prevent disparate impacts for protected groups of workers is wrong, because it only focuses?on results without regard for the employer's intention.

Many federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, and other protected characteristics. Some date back to the decades following the Civil War. The courts had long considered discrimination an intentional act. However, this began to change with the 1964 adoption of the landmark Civil Rights Act.

In a case from 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that neutral employment practices could violate Title 'VII' of the Civil Rights Act if they are disproportionately harmful to a protected group and not "demonstrably" related to performance.

Some policies can have a disparate impact on women and people with disabilities. Others may require that new hires are recent graduates of college, excluding many older candidates.

Trump and other critics have argued that disparate-impact liability is a legal theory that wrongly assumes discrimination when there are disparities between the outcomes of different groups. Reporting by David Shepardson, Editing by Chizu nomiyama and David Holmes

(source: Reuters)