Trump’s order directs federal agencies to “deprioritize enforcement” of statutes and regulations that include disparate-impact liability, which has long enabled courts to stop policies and practices that unfairly exclude people on the basis of protected characteristics such as race, gender, and disability. The order also instructs the U.S. attorney general to repeal key components of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that bar any program receiving federal financial support from discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin.”
Disparate impact claims allow consumers to challenge a variety of discriminatory practices aimed at people of color, people with disabilities, families with young children, and women, among others. These practices would otherwise, even when identified, go unaddressed. Lawsuits bringing disparate impact claims have exposed and remedied longstanding patterns of discrimination and brought relief to thousands of consumers. During the subprime lending boom that led to the Great Recession of 2008, communities of color were targeted for high-risk, high interest rate loans, and they were hit especially hard by the financial crisis. Many lawsuits bringing disparate impact claims were filed in an attempt to alter this toxic reality and bring relief to individual consumers. These lawsuits unmasked widespread discriminatory lending practices.
Derek Black, who directs the Constitutional Law Center at the University of South Carolina, said the administration was misstating the law. “If it were true that disparate-impact liability creates ‘a near insurmountable presumption of unlawful discrimination,’ we might have rid the country of disparities long ago,” he wrote on X. The concept of disparate impact, she said, prevents employers from excluding qualified candidates because of their race, gender or another protected characteristic.
In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court set precedent when it unanimously ruled in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. that the company could not use arbitrary tests or requirements in hiring and promotion if it could not prove they served a genuine business need. The court found that even if the company was not purposefully trying to discriminate based on race, if the policies had a discriminatory effect, they were illegal.
“There’s been an effort to say that with discrimination, the only kind of harm we care about is the egregious, smoking-gun evidence of animus or harassment, or where somebody is bigoted,” Yang said. “But there is often very significant harm to individuals from organizational practices that are discriminatory, yet very difficult to prove.”
While Trump’s executive order does not stop private individuals from suing over workplace and other kinds of discrimination. States and localities are also strengthening their nondiscrimination laws.
Read the April 24, 2025 Washington Post article.
<a href="https://www.freepik.com/free-photo/still-life-business-roles-with-various-pawns_24749557.htm#fromView=search&page=1&position=4&uuid=1b91fbd8-73b8-430c-92bd-eb1be0796a39&query=one+is+excluded+from+group">Image by freepik</a>.
