Which of the following is a possible justification for an employer during discrimination cases?

Which of the following is a possible justification for an employer during discrimination cases?

• A. Lack of employee interest
• B. Business necessity
• C. Workforce size
• D. Workforce diversity

Answer: (B)

The justification of "business necessity" is rooted in the idea that an employer may need to make certain employment decisions based on the essential functions of the job or the needs of the business. Under laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, an employer can defend a discrimination claim by demonstrating that a particular employment practice is necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business. For instance, if a certain physical requirement is crucial to the performance of a job and is necessary for the safety or effectiveness of the business, the employer can argue that this requirement is justified. In contrast, the other options do not hold up as valid justifications in discrimination cases. A claimed "lack of employee interest" may not be relevant to the criteria for making discrimination claims as it tends to evade the core issues of equal opportunity. "Workforce size" does not inherently justify discrimination practices, as decisions based on size can still fall under scrutiny if they lead to unequal treatment. Similarly, "workforce diversity" may actually be seen as a factor that employers should strive for, rather than a justification for discriminatory practices. Therefore, business necessity stands out as a well-established and legally recognized defense in the context of discrimination claims.

The justification of "business necessity" is rooted in the idea that an employer may need to make certain employment decisions based on the essential functions of the job or the needs of the business. Under laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, an employer can defend a discrimination claim by demonstrating that a particular employment practice is necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the business. For instance, if a certain physical requirement is crucial to the performance of a job and is necessary for the safety or effectiveness of the business, the employer can argue that this requirement is justified.

In contrast, the other options do not hold up as valid justifications in discrimination cases. A claimed "lack of employee interest" may not be relevant to the criteria for making discrimination claims as it tends to evade the core issues of equal opportunity. "Workforce size" does not inherently justify discrimination practices, as decisions based on size can still fall under scrutiny if they lead to unequal treatment. Similarly, "workforce diversity" may actually be seen as a factor that employers should strive for, rather than a justification for discriminatory practices. Therefore, business necessity stands out as a well-established and legally recognized defense in the context of discrimination claims.