A plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging the adoption of a practice may assert a disparate impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer’s later application of that practice as long as he alleges each of the elements of a disparate-impact claim pursuant to The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Court held that . . . "[d]etermining whether petitioners’ charges were timely requires“identify[ing] precisely the ‘unlawful employment practice’ of which” they complain. Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U. S. 250, 257. With the exception of the first selection round, all agree that the challenged practice here the City’s selection of firefighter hires on the basis announced in 1996—occurred within the charging period. Thus, the question is not whether a claim predicated on that conduct is timely, but whether the practice thus defined can be the basis for a disparate-impact claim at all. It can. A Title VII plaintiff establishes a prima facie claim by showing that the employer “uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact” on one of the prohibited bases The Civil Rights Act of 1964. . ." 42 U.S.C. §2000e–2(k).

See more at

http://www.ryannalleylaw.com/pages/news/943