National Investigators Exam (NIE) Practice Test – Prep & Study Guide

The statement that indirect discrimination can be justified if it serves a legitimate aim is accurate because legal frameworks often provide the means to assess whether policies or practices that indirectly disadvantage a group can be defended. In these contexts, a distinction is made between practices that are ostensibly neutral but may impact certain groups more significantly than others.

To be justified, the action must pursue an objective that is legitimate, such as promoting equality, public health, or safety, and must be necessary to achieve that objective. This means there is a clear, acceptable reason for the policy or practice in question, and it must be proportionate to the aim being pursued. This legal concept acknowledges that while the intention might not be discriminatory, a practice may lead to unequal outcomes, hence requiring a justification that focuses on the need for the action rather than simply its effects.

In contrast, options suggesting that indirect discrimination cannot ever be justified or that it requires proof of negative intent misunderstand the legal framework governing discrimination. While protective measures are critical, they do not negate the possibility that indirect discrimination may be justified under specific circumstances when justified by a legitimate aim. The idea that it is always justified concerning a group overlooks the nuanced nature of indirect discrimination, which can sometimes lead to unintentional harm.