Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service, toll-free, at 800-877-8339.Paragraph (c)(2) provides that, where a plaintiff identifies an offending policy or practice that relies on an algorithmic model, a defending party may defeat the claim by: (i) Identifying the inputs used in the model and showing that these inputs are not substitutes for a protected characteristic and that the model is predictive of risk or other valid objective; (ii) showing that a recognized third party, not the defendant, is responsible for creating or maintaining the model; or (iii) showing that a neutral third party has analyzed the model in question and determined it was empirically derived, its inputs are not substitutes for a protected characteristic, the model is predictive of risk or other valid objective, and is a demonstrably and statistically sound algorithm. Second, the theory is in tension with disparate treatment provisions under civil rights laws as well as the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of Instead, the Court ruled that Duke’s motivation, which was carried out subtly and illegally, was to safeguard its long-term practice of offering job preferences to its white employees.Put another way, if the company’s selection system proved that it was harder for a certain protected group to get a job than it would be for someone random off of the street to get the same job, then that proves that the company’s selection system is flawed.The 80% test was based solely on the ratios of job applicants who were actually hired for the job. How well do HUD's proposed changes to its disparate impact standard align with the decision and analysis in Inclusive Communities with respect to the proposed prima facie burden, including: i. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title and should contain the information specified in the “Request for Comments” section. Placement of the authority citation depends on what unit of the CFR the agency is amending.David H. Enzel, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement Programs, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 5204, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-5557 (this is not a toll-free number). It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.36 documents in the last year(2) That there is a robust causal link between the challenged policy or practice and a disparate impact on members of a protected class that shows the specific practice is the direct cause of the discriminatory effect;595 documents in the last year35 documents in the last yearIf you have questions for the Agency that issued the current document please contact the agency directly.The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. 1. Specifically, the Court held that Duke’s standardized testing requirement worked to prevent a significant number of black employees from either being hired for, or advancing to, the company’s higher-paying jobs.The Law Dictionary for EveryoneThe employer provides documentation of the complaints to the labor board, making it necessary for Bill to prove that other – younger – employees, working in the same capacity, had also received multiple complaints, but were not fired.The district court dismissed Griggs’ claim, and the Court of Appeals found that Duke had not committed discrimination with their practices. The Discriminatory Effects Standard (commonly known as Disparate Impact) of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 upholds our societal obligation to fairness by respecting and protecting equal opportunity. (ii) Shows that the challenged model is produced, maintained, or distributed by a recognized third party that determines industry standards, the inputs and methods within the model are not determined by the defendant, and the defendant is using the model as intended by the third party; or763 documents in the last yearThe first defense allows a defendant to provide analysis showing that the model is not the actual cause of the disparate impact alleged by the plaintiff. It does not include a discussion of why the changes are made. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.331 documents in the last yearYou are now leaving FederalRegister.gov and will be accessing:The proposed rule has been determined to be a “significant regulatory action,” as defined in section 3(f) of the Order, but not economically significant under section 3(f)(1) of the Order. The disparate impact standard allows people to challenge housing discrimination without having to prove “discriminatory intent” in the mind of the discriminator. Each of the five elements in the new burden-shifting framework outlined in paragraph (b) of …