Rule 24.9.612 - BURDEN OF PROOF-DISPARATE IMPACT(1) To prevail on a claim of unlawful discrimination based on disparate impact, a charging party must establish a prima facie case by proving that one or more identified practices or policies of the respondent have a significant or substantial adverse effect on the charging party's protected class.(2) Evidence of a respondent's intent to discriminate against members of a protected class is not required to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discriminatory practice based on disparate impact.(3) Once a charging party establishes a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination based on a charge of disparate impact, the respondent must produce evidence of a legitimate business justification for the challenged practices or policies. Proof of a legitimate business justification requires admissible evidence that the challenged practices or policies are job-related and consistent with business necessity.(4) If a respondent produces admissible evidence of a legitimate business justification for a challenged business practice or policy, the charging party must prove that the articulated justification offered by the respondent is a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The charging party may prove pretext directly with evidence that an unlawful motive more likely motivated the respondent, or indirectly with evidence that the articulated business justification is not worthy of belief or that there are other practices or policies available which are equally effective in serving the legitimate business interests of the respondent which do not have similar discriminatory effects upon members of a protected class.NEW, 1996 MAR p. 2871, Eff. 10/25/96.49-2-204, 49-3-106, MCA; IMP, 49-2-101, 49-2-303, 49-2-304, 49-2-305, 49-2-306, 49-2-307, 49-2-308, 49-2-403, 49-3-101, 49-3-103, 49-3-104, 49-3-201, 49-3-202, 49-3-203, 49-3-204, 49-3-205, 49-3-206, 49-3-207, and 49-3-208, MCA;