Excluding candidates from Colorado will have disparate impact in every one of those categories.
I wish you luck making your case to the EEOC.
Since it's not targeted because of those categories not affecting exclusively those categories, it obviously wouldn't be covered.
(IANAL etc. but seems pretty clear.)
edit: more detailed explanation by fennecfoxen: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27570439
Yes, that's pretty much the point I'm making. The same argument applies to all claims of disparate impact. It occurs in every sample.
> edit: more detailed explanation by fennecfoxen
That explanation does not reflect the law. (Nor does yours.) Recall that the first disparate impact case ruled it was illegal to preserve a requirement that the company had imposed prior to the civil rights act, because of the effect that requirement had on black applicants. The shift from this set of requirements:
Must be white
Must have a college degree
Must have a college degree
Disparate impact cases revolve around the reasoning for a rule. A rule which is "reasonably designed and administered to achieve a legitimate business purpose in light of the circumstances," including its potential harm to a protected class, is legitimate. This is why an employer like a fire department, or a moving company, can have fitness qualifications, even though these have a disparate impact on the elderly, while age is a protected class.
The EEOC identifies the following criteria to help evaluate the soundness of a rule:
- The extent to which the factor is related to the employer's stated business purpose;
- The extent to which the employer defined the factor accurately and applied the factor fairly and accurately, including the extent to which managers and supervisors were given guidance or training about how to apply the factor and avoid discrimination;
- The extent to which the employer limited supervisors' discretion to assess employees subjectively, particularly where the criteria that the supervisors were asked to evaluate are known to be subject to negative stereotypes;
- The extent to which the employer assessed the adverse impact of its employment practice on the protected class; and
- The degree of the harm to individuals within the protected class, in terms of both the extent of injury and the numbers of persons adversely affected, and the extent to which the employer took steps to reduce the harm, in light of the burden of undertaking such steps.
I'd comment on applying this to Colorado but it is meaningless because there's not actually a disparate impact.
But note that fire departments can't have the same fitness qualifications for men and women. Age is a protected class; sex appears to be a more protected class.