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 bear the responsibility of preventing and addressing discrimination in the workplace, with disparate treatment being a significant concern. This paper delves into disparate treatment, utilizing the legal case Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club as a focal point to comprehend its implications, legal frameworks, and effects.

Case Overview: Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club

The case of Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club (2009) revolves around Amy and Sarah Monson, a same-sex couple seeking family membership at Rochester Athletic Club (RAC). RAC denied their request, citing a policy offering family rates only to married couples. The Monsons alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) but faced challenges in proving their claim.

Legal Issues and Framework

The case raises questions about disparate treatment and disparate impact theories under the MHRA. Disparate treatment involves less favorable treatment due to discriminatory reasons, while disparate impact pertains to neutral practices resulting in disproportionate adverse effects on protected groups. The legal framework, as established in Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club, necessitates proof of discriminatory motive for disparate treatment claims.

Example of Disparate Treatment

Examples of disparate treatment in business operations include biased hiring practices favoring one gender over another or denying promotions based on perceived conflicts with childcare responsibilities, as outlined in Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club.

Implications and Analysis

The court’s decision in Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club highlights the complexity of disparate treatment claims. Despite facing discrimination, the Monsons struggled to meet the burden of proof, emphasizing the challenges employees may encounter in addressing such issues. Additionally, the case underscores the importance of legal clarity in interpreting discrimination laws.

Uniform Guidelines and Selection Procedures

Employment practices must adhere to the Uniform Guidelines, ensuring fairness and non-discrimination. Selection procedures, such as tests and background checks, must be validated to justify their relevance to job performance.

Conclusion

Disparate treatment remains a critical issue in employment law, requiring vigilance from employers to ensure equitable treatment. Legal cases like Monson v. Rochester Athletic Club shed light on the complexities of discrimination claims and the need for clear legal standards. By adhering to legal guidelines and promoting inclusivity, organizations can mitigate the risk of disparate treatment and foster a more equitable work environment.

References

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

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

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

BUS FPX 4045 Assessment 1 Examining Disparate Treatment

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

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Disparate treatment. https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/disparate%20treatment

Summary of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. (n.d.). https://home.ubalt.edu/tmitch/645/articles/summary_of%20_uniform_guidelines-1.pdf

BUS FPX 4045 Assessment 1 Examining Disparate Treatment