Which statement best distinguishes disparate treatment from disparate impact?

• A. Disparate treatment only occurs when there is conscious intent.
• B. Disparate impact requires malice.
• C. Disparate treatment involves intentional discrimination; disparate impact involves neutral policies with discriminatory effects.
• D. Disparate impact is the same as disparate treatment in all cases.

Answer: (C)

The distinction centers on intent versus effect. Disparate treatment is about intentional discrimination—treating someone differently specifically because of a protected characteristic. Disparate impact, by contrast, arises from a policy or rule that is neutral on its face but ends up having a discriminatory effect on members of a protected class, even if there was no intent to discriminate.

That’s why the correct statement is that disparate treatment involves intentional discrimination, while disparate impact involves neutral policies with discriminatory effects. For example, a policy that explicitly bars someone because of their race is disparate treatment. A policy that applies equally to everyone but results in significantly adverse outcomes for a protected group is disparate impact, and it may be challenged unless a legitimate objective and reasonable means to achieve it can be shown.

The other options don’t fit: asserting that disparate treatment only occurs with conscious intent is too absolute, since intent can be inferred or demonstrated in practice; claiming malice is required for disparate impact is incorrect, because the concern is the outcome, not the motive; and saying they are the same in all cases ignores the crucial difference between intent and impact.