Final answer:
In a disparate impact case, the plaintiff must show prima facie evidence of a policy with a discriminatory impact. The employer must justify the practice, and the plaintiff must either show the reason as a pretext or suggest a less discriminatory alternative.
Step-by-step explanation:
In a disparate impact case, first the plaintiff must present prima facie evidence of a policy or practice that, while neutral on its face, has a discriminatory impact on a protected class. If successful, the employer must then demonstrate that the challenged practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Finally, to win, the plaintiff must prove either that the employer's reason is pretextual, meaning it is not the true reason for the policy or practice, or that other less discriminatory alternative practices would achieve the same business result without causing a disparate impact.
The concept of disparate impact arises from anti-discrimination laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which was notably interpreted in the Supreme Court ruling in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Understanding this legal framework is essential for any entity wishing to avoid the liabilities associated with employment discrimination and for those who feel they have been subjected to such discrimination.