Careful precedent selection: the first "disparate impact" case (Griggs) actually involved what was clearly intentional discrimination.
-
-
-
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@admittedlyhuman yes, but it seems actually devious (maybe just because I personally bought it for this reason for so long)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing well, reformers openly talk about picking which cases they fight in the Supreme Court to optimize for success.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@sarahdoingthing so I would say it's not "devious" so much as "hypocritical"1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@admittedlyhuman seems devious to turn a policy DESIGNED to exclude blacks from good jobs into poster defendant of this new cause of action.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing isn't the point ostensibly to root out policies that are designed to exclude blacks but you can't prove it?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @admittedlyhuman
@sarahdoingthing how would a policy not designed to exclude blacks even end up with disparate impact given how indistinguishable they are1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
@admittedlyhuman hahaha indeed, obviously if there is disparate impact that is a sign of intentional discrimination, what else COULD it be?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.