Those “disparate impact” allegations actually “sound” in disparate treatment because they don’t point to a facially neutral policy that has discriminatory effects, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey said Wednesday. Assertions that the company intentionally rates the performance of visa holders highly and maintains similar policies prioritizing visa holders describe intentional bias, the court said.
A similar conclusion was reached when an earlier version ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.