What is a common outcome of a disparate treatment claim?

A common outcome of a disparate treatment claim is proving intentional discrimination against an individual. In the context of employment law, disparate treatment refers to situations where an employee is treated differently based on a protected characteristic, such as race, gender, age, or disability. To succeed in a disparate treatment claim, the individual must demonstrate that the adverse action taken against them—such as being denied a promotion, pay raise, or job opportunity—was motivated by intentional discrimination rather than legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

The essence of such a claim is that the treatment was not merely unfair or unfounded but specifically targeted at the individual based on their protected status. This intentionality differentiates disparate treatment from other forms of discrimination, such as disparate impact, which focuses on the effects of policies that disproportionately affect certain groups, rather than on individual intent.

Understanding this distinction is crucial in employment law; proving intentional discrimination often involves showing direct evidence of biased motives or a pattern of discriminatory behavior directed at the individual. Thus, the focus on intentionality makes this outcome central to a successful disparate treatment claim.