To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.
Introduction This is my first writing of Legal Front, having been in- vited by Morrie to take up where Art Gutman and Eric Dunleavy left off. I’m immensely proud to have this opportunity and humbled at the same time. I have two pairs of enormous shoes to fill, not to mention the long line of outsized footwear that came before. I can only try my best to measure up. In the issues ahead, in response to SIOP interests, I hope to be providing coverage of areas of law other than the traditional concern with equal employment opportunity. To that end, expect to see bylines with names other than my own. Rich Tonowski EEOC But the courts and EEOC have provided abundant ma- terial for this issue regarding EEO. Two recent federal appellate decisions regarding adverse (disparate) im- pact deserve attention for adding to an already com- plex legal theory. The news on EEOC is that the agency is determined to slug it out on various aspects of its strategic enforcement plan, regardless of setbacks. Not Your Old Adverse Impact Author’s Note: The views ex- pressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency of the U.S. government nor are they to be construed as legal advice. Consider adverse impact. We’ve been told that it in- volves a facially neutral selection mechanism. That’s not necessarily so in the Seventh Circuit, based in Chi- cago. In Adams v. City of Indianapolis (2014), two re- lated cases involving (among other things) the city’s police and fire department promotion procedures, district court held for the city. The instant point of con- tention was dismissing disparate impact claims be- cause plaintiffs had also alleged intentional discrimina- tion. The Court of Appeals affirmed but made a point of correcting the lower court on the neutral mecha- nism issue. Reasoning primarily from Watson (1988), The Industrial Organizational Psychologist 21