Unbalanced Work Force Case Study

Technically, statistically speaking and by using the 4/5ths rule there is evidence of an unbalanced work force. As demonstrated above:
“The math is .80*54% and it comes out to 43%. According to the 4/5ths rule, 43% of hires for drivers should have been female.”
In order to counter a potential lawsuit of adverse impact the employer has to provide a legitimate reason for not hiring more women and, specifically, a nondiscriminatory reason (Hagen, 173).
First, one justification for Luxury Lifts to explain the imbalance could be through the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification in which the company could try and argue that males are the only ones that could provide the service of being a professional driver as a business necessity. The company would argue that this discrimination is a necessity (Whitaker-BFG Ch 2). It may be very unlikely to prove male drivers are a necessity in this case.

The size of an organization and applicant pool has a larger impact on determining disparate impact than actual discriminatory procedures (Jacobs et al. 457). For instance, there could have been such as small percentage of females who wanted to apply for the job that only a few were qualified for the position of the small pool. If 10 females applied and only 4 were qualified and were hired, while 54 out of 100 men who applied met the qualifications and were hired then this is evidence of disparate impact. A decision about 1 individual could determine if it’s a disparate impact case (GFB, 43). It would be unfair for the company to have to hire an additional woman if she did not meet the qualifications of job which can cause a liability to the company in the future, all for the sake of meeting the constraints of the 4/5ths