{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02074688796680498, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013485477178423237, 'mean_word_length': 5.476510067114094, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Title VII disparate impact suits against state governments after Hibbs and Lane.

The disparate impact theory of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19641 enables employees and job applicants to challenge employment practices that, although neutral on their face, have a disproportionate, adverse effect on the basis of race, sex, or national origin.2 It permits challenges to a wide variety of employment practices including standardized tests, diploma requirements, height and weight requirements, and subjective evaluations that have stood in the way of equal access to the workplace and to advancement.3 The theory has been available to privateand public-sector employees alike since 1973.4 In recent years, the Supreme Court's "federalism revolution" has narrowed Congress's ability to override state sovereign immunity with civil rights legislation.5 As a result, whether Congress retains the power to authorize Title VII suits against state governments has