Which theory holds that a neutral employment practice that affects a protected class disproportionately can be unlawful, even without intent?

• A. Disparate treatment theory
• B. Disparate impact theory
• C. Quid pro quo harassment
• D. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

Answer: (B)

Disparate impact theory explains how a neutral employment practice can be unlawful if it disproportionately affects a protected group, even without any intent to discriminate. So even if a policy or test seems neutral on its face, its actual effect can violate law if it results in significantly fewer individuals from a protected class being hired, promoted, or retained. The legal analysis typically uses a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff shows the policy causes adverse impact; the employer must demonstrate the policy is job-related and consistent with business necessity; if that defense doesn’t fully justify the impact, the plaintiff can point to less discriminatory alternatives that would achieve the same goal. This concept highlights how the effect of a policy matters as much as the stated purpose. It differs from disparate treatment, which requires proving intentional discrimination, and from harassment or safety statutes, which address different issues.