This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.
A disparate treatment violation is made out when an individual of a protected group is shown to have been singled out and treated less favorably than others similarly situated on the basis of an impermissible criterion under Title VII.
[1] Under Title VII, a disparate-treatment plaintiff must establish "that the defendant had a discriminatory intent or motive" for taking a job-related action.
"[6] An employer may defend against liability by demonstrating that the practice is "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.
[7] Under the direct method, a plaintiff tries to show that his membership in the protected class was a motivating factor in the adverse job action.
In the majority of cases, the plaintiff lacks direct evidence of discrimination and must prove discriminatory intent indirectly by inference.
If the employer proves that it had another reason for its actions and it would have made the same decision without the discriminatory factor, it may avoid liability for monetary damages, reinstatement or promotion.
[23] The employer can rebut the prima facie case by introducing alternative statistics or by demonstrating that plaintiff's proof is either inaccurate or insignificant.