August 8, 2026
Now Hiring: Lawyers for Everything
Title 7 Disparate Impact Liability Makes Almost Everything Presumptively Illegal
Critics say the rule turns normal hiring into a legal minefield and commenters are losing it
TLDR: The article argues a major Supreme Court ruling made it possible for even neutral hiring rules to be treated as unlawful if they affect groups differently. Commenters split between saying broad protections are necessary and warning the standard is so wide it turns hiring, schools, and tech interviews into a legal chaos machine.
A legal essay arguing that U.S. anti-bias law has ballooned so far that almost any hiring rule can look illegal lit up commenters fast — and the real fireworks were in the reactions. The piece revisits the Supreme Court’s 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power decision, which said employers can get in trouble not only for obvious discrimination, but also for rules that seem neutral yet hit some groups harder than others. The author says that standard gives regulators huge power and can even reach things like criminal background checks.
Cue the comment-section identity crisis. One camp basically said: yes, this is messy, but racism and sexism are endlessly inventive, so broad rules may be the only way to stop people gaming the system. Another camp heard “disparate impact” and immediately translated it to: so… everything is illegal now? That’s where the hottest takes landed, with one commenter dropping the bleak joke that the only way to make everyone equal is to make everyone “equally stupid,” complete with a nod to Harrison Bergeron.
Then the tech crowd made it personal. One commenter dragged hiring culture itself, saying maybe the real villains are applicant tracking systems, camera-on interview rules, leetcode hazing, take-home projects, and all the other hoops job seekers already hate. And because no internet debate is complete without a timeline fight, someone else questioned whether the essay is already outdated, noting recent moves toward requiring more direct proof of unfair treatment. In other words: part legal debate, part hiring-rage therapy, part dystopia meme fest.
Key Points
- •The article examines the Supreme Court’s 1971 *Griggs v. Duke Power Co.* decision interpreting Title VII to include disparate impact liability.
- •It states that disparate impact is difficult to avoid in employment qualifications used to distinguish among applicants.
- •The article reviews the historical development of disparate impact liability under Title VII.
- •It discusses Congress’s apparent acquiescence in 1991 and the discretion this framework gives to the EEOC.
- •It specifically addresses the use of criminal background checks and constitutional arguments related to disparate impact liability.