Xerox argues persuasively that plaintiffs&apos statistics are inadequate to support the individual plaintiff&aposs disparate treatment claims both because the work-units were pooled incorrectly and because Smethurst should have conducted multiple regression analyses to control for each plaintiff&aposs performance evaluation. First, Dr. Smethurst pooled some plaintiffs into work-groups that included workers whom the plaintiff was not directly compared in the IRIF process and who were, in fact, rated by other decision-ma
Justice Scalia next discussed commonality in the Title VII context, where plaintiffs like Dukes “wish to sue about literally millions of employment decisions at once.” Id. at 2252. “Without some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those [employment] decisions together,” he wrote, “it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members&apos claims relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question why was I disfavored.” Ibid.
Markets, education, housing, criminal justice, and health care all interact with each other discrimination in any one domain can limit opportunities and cumulatively worsen life chances in another. For instance, children who are less healthy and more impoverished may do worse in school, and in turn, poor education may affect labor market opportunities. The possibility that the effects of discrimination cumulate over an individual’s lifetime is rarely discussed in the on the measurement of discriminat
Regardless of statistical significance, the effect’s practical significance remains. First, consider the “magnitude” aspect of practical significance: what do these statistical analyses imply about the magnitude of the disparity? A conventional measure of effect size suggests that this is a “small” or “weak” effect size. But we can still ask about the “confidence” aspect of practical significance: how strongly do these statistical facts (including our analysis of effect size) the existence