Also known as: disparate treatments · intentional discrimination
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Intentional discrimination against an individual or group because of a protected characteristic. Proof requires evidence that the protected trait motivated the adverse action, even when other factors also influenced the decision.
Congress enacts a statute requiring only states with large technology hubs, identified by 1990s internet data, to obtain federal approval before changing online voter registration rules. Texas challenges the law. The coverage formula treats states differently without current evidence of discrimination, violating equal sovereignty principles.
Drake Logistics refuses to hire or promote Black and Hispanic applicants to line-driving positions while routinely advancing white applicants with similar qualifications. The government sues, presenting statistical evidence of systemic exclusion. The disparity supports a finding of purposeful disparate treatment under Title VII.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Female employees at Dawson Steel allege that local managers exercise unchecked discretion over pay and promotions in ways that consistently favor male workers. The company has no express policy against women but knows of the pattern. Plaintiffs claim the refusal to limit discretion constitutes intentional disparate treatment.
The City of Cleburne denies a permit for a group home for intellectually disabled residents while approving similar facilities for other groups. The ordinance singles out the disabled based on unfounded fears rather than legitimate zoning concerns. The selective denial reflects intentional disparate treatment.
BCRA allows political parties to accept larger contributions than interest groups while imposing identical soft-money restrictions on both. Challengers argue the unequal limits constitute unconstitutional disparate treatment of similarly situated entities. The Court upholds the scheme because parties receive other statutory advantages.
The University of Texas considers race as one factor in admissions to achieve diversity after finding that race-neutral alternatives failed to produce sufficient minority enrollment. An unsuccessful white applicant claims the policy intentionally disadvantages non-minority applicants. The Court requires strict scrutiny to determine whether the use of race reflects permissible or impermissible disparate treatment.
A plaintiff must show that a protected characteristic motivated the adverse action. Direct evidence of intent or circumstantial evidence under the McDonnell Douglas framework can satisfy this burden.
Disparate treatment requires proof of discriminatory intent or motive. Disparate impact claims challenge facially neutral practices that produce disproportionate effects on a protected group without needing to show intent.
Statistical evidence can support an inference of intentional discrimination when it shows a pattern or practice of treating protected groups less favorably, but it must be combined with other evidence of motive in most individual claims.
…her patient assistance in committing suicide. Today we hold that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated by the resulting disparate treatment of two classes of terminally ill people who may have the same interest in hastening death. I agree that the distinction between permitting death to ensue from an underlying fatal disease…