Reference no: EM131370102

Three (3) small cities decide to pool their police departments into one large regional department. The city of Barrett's Human Resources department was in charge of recruiting and filling all job openings in the new regional police department.

The HR department establishes application and testing criteria, which includes a new rule that all applicants must live in one of the three (3) cities at the time they take the test to be considered a valid applicant.

Currently 6 out of the 120 police officers are Latino, or a percentage of 5.00%. The three cities have a Latino population of 25%. The Latino population within a 20 mile radius is slightly higher at 28%. The Latino population within the four (4) county metropolitan area is also 28%.

The HR department asserts that the residency requirement is needed because it would mean their new police officers will be familiar with the communities they serve; plus response times to emergencies will be faster if the officers live close to their work. In addition, since the communities are heavily Latino, it would increase the number of Spanish-speaking officers. Approximately 80% of current police officers live outside the three cities.

After a successful recruitment in which the HR department filled over 40 officer positions, the new department began. Of the 40 new officers, three (3) were Latino.

The regional police department is served with a lawsuit filed by Latino applicants who were not chosen for employment, and who were not residents of the three (3) cities, claiming the HR department's practices and procedures discriminated against them.

You are the attorney representing the Latino plaintiffs. Your assignment:

What is your theory of discrimination? Disparate treatment, adverse impact, or retaliation?

Depending on your theory of discrimination, what evidence would you present to support your claim?

How would you disprove the employer's argument for the need of a residency requirement?