William runs a private, residential, environmental education camp called Smoke on the Water. Male and female students between the ages of 13 – 18 years old spend two weeks at the camp hiking through pristine natural areas, practicing activities such as rock climbing, and spending time in outdoor and indoor classroom settings learning about the natural environment and conservation. You hire two new employees to fill out your staff for the season. One is a 21-year old Natural Resource Tourism senior named Robert. You gave Robert the job of supervising the young men campers during the day and night; having quarters within the young men’s dormitory. The other employee is a Natural Resource Tourism graduate, a 23-year old female, named Sandy, who had previous experience supervising young campers at other camps. Sandy was given a food-preparer position in the kitchen, a nonsupervisory, lower paying position. Sandy decides to sue you for gender discrimination, claiming that you gave Robert the supervisory position because he was male, even though she has more experience supervising campers as well as a college degree.

    Define disparate treatment and disparate impact. Do you think that William might have been guilty of either of these types of discrimination? If so, which one and why?

    Assume that William was eventually found to be guilty of discrimination prima facie, what defenses does he have for his hiring decision (for full credit, you must specifically name the defenses)?

    Do you think William will be successful at defending this hiring decision? Why or why not?