Select Page

I’ve written about disparate impact numerous time over the years, warning that this tactic would begin to be seen more frequently beyond the business world, such as in housing and labor.  Thomas Perez and Loretta Lynch are two of its fiercest advocates, and a recent story in the Wall Street Journal suggests that my prediction is coming true.

The idea of “disparate impact” holds that a defendant can be held liable for discrimination for a race-neutral policy that statistically disadvantages a specific minority group even if that negative “impact” was neither foreseen nor intended.  The Department of Labor has leveled that charge at a Silicon Valley software firm, Palantir Technologies.

According to the Wall Street Journal, five years ago, the Department of Labor accused Palantir of racial discrimination against Asian-Americans on three occasions, saying “the racial composition of Palantir’s hires for three positions—out of 44 job titles—in 2010 and 2011 didn’t mirror its applicant pool. Palantir hired one Asian and six non-Asian applicants for a quantitative-analysis position out of a pool of 730 “qualified applicants,” 77% of whom were Asian. For a software-engineer position, the company hired 14 non-Asian and 11 Asian applicants out of 1,160 applicants (85% of whom were Asian). The complaint says the odds of this occurring “by chance” are one in 3.4 million.”

But here’s the problem. The Department of Labor, by looking at everything entirely by race, completely ignores (excludes?) the idea that a company hire employees based on skill. Palantir argued this point in response: that the Department of Labor’s “analysis assumes incorrectly that anyone having any ‘domestic education,’ any ‘internship,’ any ‘prior experience,’ and ‘Java skills’ should be considered ‘equally or more qualified’ for the positions.”  It adds that the department is “essentially advocating” an “illegal quota system.”

“Palantir notes that a quarter of its workforce and 37% of its product engineering team are of Asian descent. Of the 33 hired by Palantir during 2010 and 2011, 36% were Asian. Two of the four members of Palantir’s senior leadership identify as Asians. And more than half of the managers who oversaw the hiring process are Asian.

If Palantir had selected employees at random, 80% would be Asian. Then Labor might have said it is guilty of discriminating against Latinos and blacks.”

As if the charges weren’t bad enough, the Department of Labor decided to take it further this month after Palantir fought back with its responses. Labor has requested a “an administrative-law judge to cancel Palantir’s federal contracts and force the company to compensate the alleged victims of its discrimination.”  Of course, since Palantir did not actually discriminate against anyone, no one has requested compensation.  Only in the world of disparate impact analysis did Palantir do anything wrong, and since the Department of Labor does not disclose its methodology of determining disparate impact violations (except for broad statistics), no company can actually know if they are violating this kind of bogus “policy” of the Department of Labor.

It’s this kind of  egregious action by the Department of Labor that makes being a business owner in the current climate a very difficult thing.