BUS FPX 4045 Assessment 1 Examining Disparate Treatment

Student Name

Capella University

BUS-FPX4045 Recruiting, Retention, and Development

Prof. Name:

Date

Disparate Treatment in Employment: Recognition, Legal Issues, and Implications

Introduction

Employers have a critical obligation to ensure fair treatment and prevent discrimination in the workplace. One prominent concern in employment law is disparate treatment, which refers to instances where individuals are treated less favorably due to protected characteristics. This paper delves into disparate treatment through the lens of the legal case Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club (2009), examining its implications, legal frameworks, and broader effects on workplace equity.

Case Overview: Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club

The case of Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club centered on Amy and Sarah Monson, a same-sex couple who sought a family membership at Rochester Athletic Club (RAC). RAC denied their request, citing a policy that limited family rates to married couples, effectively excluding them. The Monsons alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). However, proving their claim proved challenging as the case required them to establish a direct discriminatory motive.

Legal Issues and Framework

This case highlights two major concepts in employment law: disparate treatment and disparate impact under the MHRA.

Disparate Treatment: Refers to intentional discrimination where individuals are treated less favorably based on characteristics like race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Disparate Impact: Involves policies or practices that are neutral on the surface but disproportionately harm a protected group.

The court’s interpretation of the Monsons’ claim underscored the legal framework for disparate treatment claims, requiring direct evidence of discriminatory intent.

Example of Disparate Treatment

Instances of disparate treatment in business include biased hiring practices that favor one gender over another or denying promotions based on perceived family responsibilities. The Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club case illustrates how discrimination may arise from policies that appear neutral but have exclusionary effects.

Implications and Analysis

The ruling in Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club underscores the difficulties in proving disparate treatment claims, even when discriminatory actions are evident. For employees, this case reveals the burdensome nature of establishing intent in court. Employers, on the other hand, must recognize the complexities of discrimination laws and ensure their policies are inclusive and compliant with legal standards.

Uniform Guidelines and Selection Procedures

To mitigate risks, employers must adhere to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. These guidelines mandate fairness in hiring, promotions, and other employment decisions, ensuring that selection tools such as tests and background checks are job-related and nondiscriminatory.

Conclusion

Disparate treatment remains a pressing issue in employment law, posing challenges for both employees and employers. Legal cases like Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club highlight the complexities surrounding discrimination claims and the critical need for clear legal frameworks. By aligning practices with legal guidelines and fostering inclusivity, organizations can reduce the likelihood of discrimination and create equitable workplaces.

References

Casetext.com. (n.d.). Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club, 759 N.W.2d 60. Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/monson-v-rochesterathletic-club-1

Duignan, B. (2014, December 16). Voter ID law | Definition, History, & Facts. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/voter-ID-law

Symonds, C. (2023). Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: What’s the Difference? Factorial Blog. Retrieved from https://factorialhr.com/blog/disparate-treatment/

Thomson Reuters Legal. (2022, May 10). What is disparate treatment discrimination? Thomson Reuters Legal. Retrieved from https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/the-basics-of-disparate-treatment-discrimination-under-title-vii