Which of the following is correct regarding disparate-impact discrimination cases?

Disparate impact discrimination cases refer to situations where policies, practices, rules or other systems that appear to be neutral result in a disproportionate impact on a protected group.

Here are the steps to determine if a case is a disparate-impact discrimination case:

1. Identification of a specific policy or practice: The first step is to identify a specific policy or practice that is causing the alleged discrimination. This could be a hiring practice, a promotional test, or any other policy or practice within an organization.

2. Statistical disparity: The second step is to demonstrate that the policy or practice has a disparate impact on a protected group. This is typically done through statistical analysis. For example, if a company's hiring practice results in a significantly lower percentage of a certain racial group being hired compared to their representation in the relevant labor market, this could be evidence of disparate impact.

3. Business necessity: If a statistical disparity is demonstrated, the burden shifts to the employer to show that the policy or practice is a "business necessity." This means that the policy or practice is necessary to the safe and efficient operation of the business.

4. Less discriminatory alternative: Even if the employer can show business necessity, the plaintiff can still prevail by showing that there is a less discriminatory alternative that serves the employer's needs but that the employer refuses to adopt.

So, the correct statement regarding disparate-impact discrimination cases is that they involve policies or practices that appear neutral but have a disproportionate impact on a protected group.