Disparate Impact: Government Extortion

Obama’s administration has virtually institutionalized disparate impact as a tool to extort funds from private business, while ignoring or exempting government from the same requirements.  Allowing this blatant extortion to continue without a thorough examination confirms the extent to which our governments are no longer representative of the people.  Rather than allowing disparate impact to see the light of day, Obama’s executive branch works overtime to keep it in the shadows.   

 

Disparate impact is the term coined to describe results which don’t conform to a pre-ordained federal government standard.  Failure to conform to this outcome is being inappropriately applied across many non-government functions, the result of which is government charges of discrimination against private companies based upon protected classes.

Over a half-billion dollars in government fines have been paid by private businesses to settle cases of alleged discrimination without a single instance of actual discrimination being identified.   Fines paid include FedEx ($3m), Bank of America ($355m), and Wells Fargo ($175m).  These are all settlement agreements which are sealed, never to see the light of day.

Problem is few folks understand the actual mechanisms at work, because these mechanisms are based upon statistics, a function which clouds the mind and curls around itself like a cat chasing its tail.  The misuse of statistics to extort large sums of money is well established under the Obama administration, thanks in large part to Tom Perez, the almost confirmed Secretary of the Labor Department as of July 22, 2013.  With this possible confirmation, the fox would be in charge of the nation’s employment hen house.

One of the most egregious of cases is FedEx which paid a $3 million fine to get the government off its back.  This statistical theory produced 21,635 alleged instances of discrimination in two dozen facilities in 15 states against females, blacks, and foreign job applicants.  On its face, one should ask if a single instance of actual job discrimination from this biased sample was ever identified?  Why did this settlement include only 15 of the 50 states? Isn’t age a protected class, and why was age not included in the government suit?  FedEx admitted no wrong-doing, stated they disagreed with the alleged discrimination in employment in any way, paid the fine, and the file was sealed.

When the IRS, Justice Department, FBI, or Department of Labor comes knocking on your door with an official request (a suit) to examine the data in your books about a complaint of alleged discrimination, the Office of Civil Rights theory of disparate impact is an integral part of that entry.  Regardless of your business’ strict compliance with every employment, insurance, financing law, the outcome is virtually predetermined when they come through your door.  Unlike the criminal justice system in which you are innocent until proven guilty, this theory sets justice on its head, and requires you to prove you are innocent using the government’s statistical tools.  This is impossible to do.

For all businesses which screen job applicants, select actuarial rates for insurance, or establish interest rates on mortgages, if the end-result does not conform with the government’s census head count for protected classes, the business is guilty of discrimination. Variance from the preordained head count is the normative standard for the charge.

Cutting through the statistical garbage, this means that each final result must not vary, statistically, from the norm. An almost comparable example is like an IRS agent auditing your records, and concluding that the average person in your income bracket pays $20,000 in federal taxes.  Therefore you must pay $20,000.

This example, unfortunately, begins with normative information, a value equivalent in dollars which ranks your income as more or less than others.  Census, or head-count information is not normative or value based, but is simply descriptive.  Descriptive data, like a gender head count, has no equivalent value assignment.  Using a head count, as though it includes some relative value, amounts to enforcing a strict quote system upon all businesses as an end product.  Disparate impact is the equivalent of affirmative action in college admissions, a head-count based remedy to admit students who may not otherwise satisfy the usual admission standards.

Not surprisingly, those currently displaying racial animus suggest that criminal background checks are discriminatory because the result screens out more criminals (read blacks).  Many government applications require criminal checks for their internal functions.  The process of selecting reliable and responsible affiliates by business is appropriate discrimination.  Are private businesses supposed to march to a different drummer?

Obama’s administration has virtually institutionalized disparate impact as a tool to extort funds from private business, while ignoring or exempting government from the same requirements.  Allowing this blatant extortion to continue without a thorough examination confirms the extent to which our governments are no longer representative of the people.  Rather than allowing disparate impact to see the light of day, Obama’s executive branch works overtime to keep it in the shadows.

Leave a Reply