Employee discrimination can come in the form of disparate impact and disparate treatment. "Disparate treatment occurs when individuals with particular characteristics that are not job-related are treated differently from others" (Valentine et al., 2020, p. 75). This form of discrimination is often intentional and direct. It is seen through unequal treatment, discriminatory actions, and different standards being held for employees and through recruitment practices. There are many consequences to businesses that practice disparate treatment, including lawsuits, harming the company's reputation, and the impact on employees and the culture. Potentially, this could lead to higher employee turnover, increased grievances and investigations, and employees could become demotivated and skeptical of management and the company (Gardner, 2021). Disparate impact "occurs when an employment practice that does not appear to be discriminatory adversely affects individuals with a particular characteristic so that they are substantially underrepresented as a result of employment decisions that work to their disadvantage" (Valentine et al., 2020, p. 75). This is usually unintentional and indirect. With disparate impact, consequences or results are often unequal, and employees are held to the same standards but with different consequences. Each form of discrimination is illegal, and companies should take the necessary steps to prevent this from happening (Gardner, 2021).

I agree with the assessment that Griggs v. Duke Power is an example of disparate impact. At the time of this case, many people thought that only direct, intentional discrimination was prohibited. Because of this, companies adopted employment tests and requirements that were racially or gender-neutral to all appearances but unfairly negatively impacted racial minorities and women. Griggs v. Duke Power involved the legality of racially neutral educational and testing practices (Bolton, 2014, pp. 425-426). U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a lack of intent is not enough for an employer to prove that a practice is lawful. An employer is burdened with showing that a selection practice is directly job-related as a business necessity. An employer must demonstrate that no reasonable, nondiscriminatory method can be used in the hiring process (Valentine et al., 2020, p. 75).In the Griggs case, the tests they were using showed disparate impact because there was unfairness in subjecting African American employees to many tests to be considered for promotion. Also, Duke Power's jobs were adamantly segregated by race and maintained racially segregated facilities (Bolton, 2014, p. 427).

do you agree or disagree and why?