Question

EEOC v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., 87 Civ. 6322 (SD Fla. 1989) The plaintiff, a black male, filed suit alleging that he was not hired as a truck driver because he was a member of a protected group (minority race). The defendant (Carolina Freight Carriers Corporation) had a company policy of not hiring applicants who had been convicted of a felony. The plaintiff had served a prison sentence for larceny and had admitted as much on his employment application with the defendant. The defendant presented evidence that they had incurred significant annual losses which management had determined was largely attributable to employee theft. The truck drivers worked without significant supervision and were responsible for trucks and cargoes worth a great deal of money.

Questions
1. Is this case one of disparate impact or disparate treatment?

Answer 1

The EEOC v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp. case is an example of disparate treatment, a form of employment discrimination where an individual is treated unfavorably because of race, which is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Step-by-step explanation:

The case of EEOC v. Carolina Freight Carriers Corp., where a black male plaintiff alleged not being hired as a truck driver due to his race, represents an example of disparate treatment rather than disparate impact. Disparate treatment is a form of employment discrimination where an individual is treated less favorably because of a characteristic such as race, which is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In this case, the plaintiff must prove that the employer intentionally discriminated against him because of his race. The defendant's policy not to hire those with felony convictions applies across the board and is not targeted at a specific race; however, if this policy is disproportionately applied or has the intent of targeting a specific race, it might constitute disparate treatment.