Affirmative Action v. Quotas, disparate treatment and disparate Coursework

Affirmative Action v. Quotas, disparate treatment and disparate impact, employment at will - Coursework Example Quotas, on the other hand, refer to a set number or percentage for the representation of people of a given group. The main difference between affirmative action and quotas is that while affirmative action has no set minimum percentages for the representation of a protected group, quotas provide this. This makes quotas easier to monitor considered that the criteria for determining whether or not an institution has complied is predetermined. Disparate impact is easier to prove compared to disparate treatment. While disparate impact involves focuses on discriminatory consequences, disparate treatment looks at discriminatory intent. One would, therefore, suppose that it is easier to establish the consequences of discrimination than to establish the intention of discrimination. Proof of discriminatory motive does not, therefore, is not part of the disparate-impact theory. This implies that establishing the consequences of discrimination within an institution does not involve the contributions of an institution’s management as it is the case with establishing the motive behind discrimination. The employment-at-will doctrine refers to the common rule that an employment contract with no defined duration can be terminated by either the employer or the employee at any time without the party terminating the contract having to provide good reasons for doing so. This doctrine goes against the â€Å"good will† requirement advocated by employee unions. Unlike the at-will doctrine, the good will requirement supposes that employers need to demonstrate that it is for a good cause that they intend to terminate an employee’s