Question

1. Refer to Bradley v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Inc. 939 F.2d 610 (8^th 1991); 7 F.3d 795 (8^th Cir. 1993). Is this a disparate treatment or disparate impact case? Explain your answer. (TB: EMPLOYMENT LAW FOR BUSINESS, 9th Ed.)

Answer 1

CASE OF BRADLEY VS PIZZACO :

Langston Bradley was working at Domino's pizza, but has lost his job stating that he has not followed the "No shave" policy followed by the Domino's. Hence he went on filing a case of the district court.

Based on the readings, this is a disparate impact case. because Domino's has presented that "No shave" policy is compulsory and the people who lost their jobs are predominantly because of Pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) diseases, which occur to many black males due to a genetic disorder. But Brandley stated that he had very mild PFB and he was able to shave clean every time.

And it was proved by Bradley that the removal of black employee was predominantly more than whites and he raise a query to Domino's to state the reason for it.

Here , we have few information proven for disparate impact are

• Domino's has not tested the employee and concluded it partially
• It used it a tool to eliminate black employees easily and performed racial discrimination to them
• Racial balance was not maintained , they had a discriminatory work policy
• Bradley proved that the records show that half of the people with PFB can shave.