The Bradley case discussed in the text points out three important aspects of disparate impact cases. In order to prove a disparate impact one must show that seemingly race-neutral selection criteria has a significantly greater impact on members of one racial group than members of other racial groups. This is usually proved by statistical comparisons. In Bradley, this was done by showing that the no-beard policy effectively discouraged at least 25 percent of black males from applying for positions due to their inability to shave without adverse health affects from PFB, while almost no white males were discouraged. Also Bradley demonstrates that a disparate-impact case may be proven in hiring situation without direct proof that particular members of the racial group were in fact rejected as applicants. The selection criteria (no-beard rule) were presumed to have the effect of discouraging members of the racial group from applying for the job. This case highlights the need for employers to ensure that any criteria used for selecting persons for hire, promotion or layoff must be job related and necessary to the employer’s business. In Bradley the employer tried to argue that the no-beard requirement was a job-related business necessity based on a survey of potential customers, which concluded that up to 20 percent of customers would react negatively to a pizza-delivery person who had a beard. The court ruled that, other than negative reaction, the survey did not establish that people would actually order fewer pizzas from the company because some of the persons delivering pizza were bearded. Also an alternative would be requiring people to prove medical conditions to the no-beard restrictions rather than having a blanket policy.
