The plaintiff bears the burden of proof in making the case, but work-relatedness is a defense, so thedefendent bears that burden. --jks
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> At 06:53 PM 6/15/98 -0400, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> >Such a standard can be a basis for a Title VII disparate impact sex
> >discrinmination lawsuit. If the standard is really arbitrary, it will not
> >pass muster. Standards like that have to be job related, or the employer
> >will be liable. Job relatedness requires a showing of more than a
> >mere assertion, although less than a staistically verifiable connection.
> >But the employer's bare recitation that the standard is job related will
> >not rebut a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination.
>
>
> Question: So who bears the burden of proof, if a standars is challenegd in
> courts as arbitrary? In other words, is it assumed that the standard is
> arbitrary until the defendant (the employer) proves otherwise, or is it
> assumed work-related until the plaintiff shows otherwise?
>
> Regards,
>
> Wojtek Sokolowski