Which theory requires the plaintiff to prove that the employer intentionally discriminated against individuals based on protected characteristics?

• A. Disparate treatment theory
• B. Disparate impact theory
• C. Affirmative action plan
• D. Collective bargaining

Answer: (A)

This question centers on the difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact in employment discrimination. The theory that requires proof of intentional discrimination is disparate treatment. It focuses on the employer’s motive: the plaintiff must show that a decision—such as hiring, firing, or promotion—was made specifically because of a protected characteristic like race, sex, religion, or national origin. The legal path typically involves proving a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer providing a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the decision, and the plaintiff showing that reason is a pretext for discrimination.

Disparate impact, by contrast, does not require showing intent. It looks at the effect of a neutral policy or practice that disproportionately harms a protected class, and then examines whether the policy is job-related and consistent with business necessity, or whether there are less discriminatory alternatives.

Affirmative action plans are proactive diversity initiatives, not theories about proving discrimination in a particular decision, and collective bargaining concerns labor relations between employees and management, not discrimination theories.