The goal of this article is to extrapolate some key lessons from studying two pre-disaster structures that perpetuated environmental oppression and poverty as well as to develop post-development economic models in these disaster-stricken areas. Furthermore, the article considers the environmental movement as a vehicle for implementing the policies proposed. It also investigates how individuals within these deterministic structures can be empowered to overcome the structural realities that help perpetuate poverty and environmental oppression.

In so doing, this article borrows from Critical Race Theory’s notion of structural determinism to denounce the hierarchical structures promulgated by neutral rules in agricultural legislation and to further analyze the commonalities in the realities faced by farmers all over the world. It analyzes some structural and policy-based problems that have had detrimental effects on poor regions like Haiti and the Gulf Coast. Disasters like Katrina and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti exacerbate these problems and serve as reminders that these disparities need to be eradicated when implementing post-disaster development plans.

Consequently, this paper is divided into the following parts: Part I discusses the application of the structural determinist principle to the agricultural context in Mississippi and Haiti. Part II discusses the rural isolation discriminatory practices with regards to small farmers and the challenges faced by rural residents pre- and post-Katrina. Part III analyzes the challenges existing in Haiti pre-disaster. Part IV discusses the effects of American agricultural policies on small farmers domestically and abroad. Part V considers a model for post-disaster development that attempts to reverse the oppressive effects of current agricultural policies. Finally, Part VI explores the environmental movement’s potential for helping to implement post-disaster development plans.

The systemic disparate treatment theory of employment discrimination is in disarray. Originally formulated in United States v. International B’hood of Teamsters, 431 U.S. 324, 360-61 (1977), the systemic disparate treatment theory provides plaintiffs with a method for creating an inference of unlawful discriminatory intent if plaintiffs can first present sufficient statistical evidence establishing that the employer was engaged in a “pattern or practice” of discrimination. While the Court and scholars have recently given substantial attention to the disparate impact theory, they have not adequately analyzed the contours of the systemic disparate treatment theory. For example, there are currently disputes about whether the systemic disparate treatment theory can be utilized by plaintiffs in (1) ADEA cases, (2) ADA cases, (3) hostile work environment cases, and (4) private individual (non-class) discrimination cases brought under any of the antidiscrimination statutes. The development of a coherent approach to systemic disparate treatment law is becoming increasingly important. Since 2006, the EEOC has made pursuit of its “Systemic Initiative” a top priority in its enforcement strategy. Thus, difficult questions about the application of the systemic disparate treatment theory will continue to surface.

In this paper, I take a first step toward bringing order to the systemic disparate treatment theory. I return to the foundations of the systemic disparate treatment theory in order to formulate a set of guiding principles for resolving the issues listed above. Drawing upon economic models of optimal allocation of burdens of proof in civil litigation and an application of Bayesian probability analysis, I argue that the proper extent of the systemic disparate treatment theory depends on three critical considerations: (1) the background prevalence (or prior probability) of the type of discrimination alleged; (2) the relative strength of the evidentiary signal provided by the proffered statistical evidence; and (3) the parties’ relative access to evidence on the element of discriminatory intent. Applying the principles I develop in this article, I conclude that the Teamsters systemic disparate treatment theory should be available to plaintiffs in ADEA, ADA, and individual (non-class) cases, but not in hostile work environment cases.