Final answer:
It is false that an employer can win an employment discrimination lawsuit simply by proving job requirements are discriminatory, job-related, and consistent with business necessities. Requirements must be nondiscriminatory and directly related to job performance under federal laws overseen by the EEOC, and historic cases like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. set precedents against discriminatory practices.
Step-by-step explanation:
In an employment discrimination lawsuit, the statement that an employer is likely to win at trial if the employer shows that its requirements for a position are discriminatory, job-related, and consistent with business necessities is false. If the employer's requirements are proven to be discriminatory, they cannot be justified simply by being related to the job or necessary for the business.
For someone to sue on the grounds of racial discrimination, evidence must be shown that the employee is paid less than another employee of a different race for similar work, qualifications, and expertise. Additionally, hiring criteria that are based on group membership, such as race or gender, and not on individual abilities are considered discriminatory unless the membership is directly relevant to job performance.
Federal anti-discrimination laws, overseen by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), prohibit discrimination in any aspect of employment. Moreover, historic cases like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. reinforce that job requirements must be directly related to job performance and not negatively impact one race over another. Market pressure and public cases, such as the class-action suit against Walmart, highlight the ongoing issues and efforts against employment discrimination.