Yale Law Journal 126 (8):2382-2420 (2017)

Kevin Tobia
Georgetown University
Statistical evidence is crucial throughout disparate impact’s three-stage analysis: during (1) the plaintiff’s prima facie demonstration of a policy’s disparate impact; (2) the defendant’s job-related business necessity defense of the discriminatory policy; and (3) the plaintiff’s demonstration of an alternative policy without the same discriminatory impact. The circuit courts are split on a vital question about the “practical significance” of statistics at Stage 1: Are “small” impacts legally insignificant? For example, is an employment policy that causes a one percent disparate impact an appropriate policy for redress through disparate impact litigation? This circuit split calls for a comprehensive analysis of practical significance testing across disparate impact’s stages. Importantly, courts and commentators use “practical significance” ambiguously between two aspects of practical significance: the magnitude of an effect and confidence in statistical evidence. For example, at Stage 1 courts might ask whether statistical evidence supports a disparate impact (a confidence inquiry) and whether such an impact is large enough to be legally relevant (a magnitude inquiry). Disparate impact’s texts, purposes, and controlling interpretations are consistent with confidence inquires at all three stages, but not magnitude inquiries. Specifically, magnitude inquiries are inappropriate at Stages 1 and 3—there is no discriminatory impact or reduction too small or subtle for the purposes of the disparate impact analysis. Magnitude inquiries are appropriate at Stage 2, when an employer defends a discriminatory policy on the basis of its job-related business necessity.
Keywords antidiscrimination  equality  statistics  disparate impact  legal theory  philosophy of law  discrimination
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Why Should We Be Concerned About Disparate Impact?Ronald A. Lindsay - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (5):23 – 24.
Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination and Autonomy.Oran Doyle - 2007 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27 (3):537-553.
Reciprocal Antidiscrimination Arguments.Yofi Tirosh - 2012 - Law and Ethics of Human Rights 6 (2):229-246.


Added to PP index

Total views
194 ( #59,314 of 2,499,417 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #42,694 of 2,499,417 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes