griggs v duke power company which prohibits course hero

What was the case of Griggs v Duke Power Co?

Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) Case Summary of Griggs v. Duke Power Co.: A group of African-American employees sued their employer, Duke Power Company, for a policy that mandated a high school diploma and satisfactory scores on two general aptitude tests in order to advance in the company.

What is the significance of the Duke Power V Duke case?

Duke Power Co., case in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision on March 8, 1971, established the legal precedent for so-called “ disparate-impact ” lawsuits involving instances of racial discrimination. (“Disparate impact” describes a situation in which adverse effects of criteria—such as those applied...

What is the significance of the Griggs case?

In Griggs, LDF represented a group of thirteen African-American employees who worked at the Duke Power Company’s Dan River Steam Station, a power-generating facility located in Draper, North Carolina. Duke Power had a long history of segregating employees by race. At the Steam Station, the best jobs were reserved for whites.

How did Duke Power treat blacks at the Steam Station?

Duke Power had a long history of segregating employees by race. At the Steam Station, the best jobs were reserved for whites. African-Americans were relegated to the labor department, where the highest-paid worker earned less than the lowest-paid employee in the other four departments where only whites worked.

What was the Griggs v Duke Power Co case?

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. It is generally considered the first case of its type.

What was the Ginsburg dissent in Ricci v. DeStefano?

Justice Ginsburg 's dissent in Ricci v. DeStefano suggests that the Griggs conclusion (that Congress aimed beyond "disparate treatment"; it targeted "disparate impact" as well and proscribed not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation) has been effectively overturned by the Ricci decision.

What is the disparate impact test?

The Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if such tests disparately impact ethnic minority groups, businesses must demonstrate that such tests are "reasonably related" to the job for which the test is required . Because Title VII was passed pursuant to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, the disparate impact test later articulated by the Supreme Court in Washington v. Davis, 426 US 229 (1976) is inapplicable. (The Washington v. Davis test for disparate impact is used in constitutional equal protection clause cases, while Title VII's prohibition on disparate impact is a statutory mandate.)

What is the touchstone of the Act?

The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.

What is the purpose of Title VII?

As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as a decisive factor in employment decisions) that are not a "reasonable measure of job performance," regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate.

What did the Supreme Court rule about the employment requirements of black employees?

The Supreme Court ruled that the company's employment requirements did not pertain to applicants' ability to perform the job, and so were unintentionally discriminating against black employees. The judgment famously held that " Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox ."

Why was the literacy test barred in North Carolina?

United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969). There, because of the inferior education received by Negroes in North Carolina, this Court barred the institution of a literacy test for voter registration on the ground that the test would abridge the right to vote indirectly on account of race.

What was the Supreme Court ruling in the Duke Power case?

By a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the tests given by Duke Power were artificial and unnecessary and that the requirements for transfer had a disparate impact on blacks.

What was the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co.?

(1971), a case presenting a challenge to a power company’s requirement that employees pass an intelligence test and obtain a high-school diploma to transfer out of its lowest-paying department. Prior to 1965 African Americans could be hired only by the…

What is the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court of the United States, final court of appeal and final expositor of the Constitution of the United States. Within the framework of litigation, the Supreme Court marks the boundaries of authority between state and nation, state and state, and government and citizen.….

Why did the Duke Power Company sue?

The background of the Griggs case began in the early 1970s, when African American workers at the Duke Power Company in North Carolina sued the company because of a rule that required employees who were transferring between different departments to have a high-school diploma or pass an intelligence test.

What is the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called?

racism, the belief that humans may be divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some races are innately superior to others.….

What is an encyclopedia editor?

Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. ...

What was the burden of establishing a discriminatory intent behind an employment requirement before Griggs?

Before Griggs, the employee or applica nt had the burden of establishing a discriminatory intent behind an employment requirement. Following this decision, plaintiffs had only to prove discriminatory impact from hiring or advancement standards to succeed. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 codified this standard.

When employment requirements have a disparate impact on minorities and are not related to successful job performance, they violate?

When employment requirements have a disparate impact on minorities and are not related to successful job performance, they violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even when there is no discriminatory intent.

Why has Congress not commanded that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified?

Congress has not commanded that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origins.

Who is the plaintiff in the Civil Rights Act?

Griggs (Plaintiff) was an African American employee of Duke Power Co. (Defendant) who challenged Defendant’s job requirements as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because they disparately impacted African American applicants and were not tied to job performance.

What is the significance of Griggs v. Duke Power Co?

is an early and important case discussing the need to eradicate not only discriminatory treatment in the workplace, but also race-neutral polices that have a discriminatory impact.

Why did Duke Power sue?

Duke Power Co.: A group of African-American employees sued their employer, Duke Power Company, for a policy that mandated a high school diploma and satisfactory scores on two general aptitude tests in order to advance in the company.

What did the Supreme Court say about race neutral policies?

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that even race-neutral policies that may show no discriminatory intent, still may be discriminatory in operation. It found that the high school and testing requirements indeed had a disproportionate negative impact on the African-American employees’ ability to advance. Therefore, those requirements violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Why did the lower courts find no violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

They reasoned that because the high school and testing requirements applied to all races the Company had no discriminatory intent.

What did the company require after 1965?

After 1965, the Company required a high school diploma and satisfactory scores on two professionally prepared aptitude tests for employees to advance to higher divisions. The aptitude tests were not tied to any specific job-related skills.

What was the purpose of Title VII?

Congress’ objective in enacting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was equality of employment opportunities and the removal of barriers that previously favored white employees. Accordingly, employer policies that appear race neutral but result in keeping a status quo that continues to discriminate against African-American employees violates the Act.

What was the Duke Power Company's policy before the Civil Rights Act?

Before the Civil Rights Act became effective in 1965, the Duke Power Company in North Carolina openly discriminated against African-American employees by allowing them to only work in the lowest paid division of the Company.

What is Title VII?

It held that Title VII “proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.”.

What was the impact of the 1991 Civil Rights Act?

LDF’s victory therefore continues to ensure that employees may challenge not only overt discrimination but also job-selection procedures “that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.”

What did Duke Power do to stop discrimination?

Shortly after Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, Duke Power stopped expressly restricting African-Americans to the labor department and announced new standards for hiring, promotion, and transfers. In order to work in positions outside of the labor department, Duke Power now required a high school diploma or scores on standardized IQ tests equal to those of the average high school graduate. These new requirements were not an improvement, however. They effectively perpetuated the discriminatory policies that Duke Power had utilized prior to the enactment of Title VII. Although the testing and diploma criteria disqualified African-Americans at a substantially higher rate than whites, Duke Power never established that they successfully measured ability to do the jobs in question. Indeed, the white employees hired before the requirements were imposed performed entirely satisfactorily.

What is required to work at Duke Power?

In order to work in positions outside of the labor department, Duke Power now required a high school diploma or scores on standardized IQ tests equal to those of the average high school graduate.

Where did the LDF work?

In Griggs, LDF represented a group of thirteen African-American employees who worked at the Duke Power Company’s Dan River Steam Station, a power-generating facility located in Draper, North Carolina. Duke Power had a long history of segregating employees by race. At the Steam Station, the best jobs were reserved for whites. African-Americans were relegated to the labor department, where the highest-paid worker earned less than the lowest-paid employee in the other four departments where only whites worked.

When did the Supreme Court issue the Griggs v. Duke Power decision?

In 1971, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Griggs v. Duke Power, which transformed our nation’s work places.

Did Duke Power segregate employees by race?

Duke Power had a long history of segregating employees by race. At the Steam Station, the best jobs were reserved for whites. African-Americans were relegated to the labor department, where the highest-paid worker earned less than the lowest-paid employee in the other four departments where only whites worked.

Why were the requirements unlawful?

It held that, absent such discriminatory purpose, use of the requirements was permitted, and rejected the claim that, because a disproportionate number of Negroes was rendered ineligible for promotion, transfer, or employment, the requirements were unlawful unless shown to be job-related.

Why was the literacy test barred in North Carolina?

United States, 395 U. S. 285 (1969). There, because of the inferior education received by Negroes in North Carolina, this Court barred the institution of a literacy test for voter registration on the ground that the test would abridge the right to vote indirectly on account of race.

What is primary holding?

Primary Holding. Even if there is no discriminatory intent, an employer may not use a job requirement that functionally excludes members of a certain race if it has no relation to measuring performance of job duties.

What is 401 U.S. 424?

401 U.S. 424. Negro employees at respondent's generating plant brought this action, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, challenging respondent's requirement of a high school diploma or passing of intelligence tests as a condition of employment in or transfer to jobs at the plant.

How many whites passed the Wonderlic test?

Similarly, with respect to standardized tests, the EEOC in one case found that use of a battery of tests, including the Wonderlic and Bennett tests used by the Company in the instant case, resulted in 58% of whites passing the tests, as compared with only 6% of the blacks.

How many employees did the Dan River Station have?

At the time this action was instituted, the Company had 95 employees at the Dan River Station, 14 of whom were Negroes; 13 of these are petitioners here. The District Court found that, prior to July 2, 1965, the effective date of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the. Page 401 U. S. 427.

What is the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Negro employees at respondent's generating plant brought this action, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, challenging respondent's requirement of a high school diploma or passing of intelligence tests as a condition of employment in or transfer to jobs at the plant.

How many whites passed the Wonderlic test?

Similarly, with respect to standardized tests, the EEOC in one case found that use of a battery of tests, including the Wonderlic and Bennett tests used by the Company in the instant case, resulted in 58% of whites passing the tests, as compared with only 6% of the blacks.

Why was the literacy test barred in North Carolina?

United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969). There, because of the inferior education received by Negroes in North Carolina, this Court barred the institution of a literacy test for voter registration on the ground that the test would abridge the right to vote indirectly on account of race.

What test did the coal company pass in 1965?

In September 1965 the Company began to permit incumbent employees who lacked a high school education to qualify for transfer from Labor or Coal Handling to an "inside" job by passing two tests - the Wonderlic Personnel Test , which purports to measure general intelligence, and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test.

What did the Court of Appeals say about the racial discrimination?

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court in part, rejecting the holding that residual discrimination arising from prior employment practices was insulated from remedial action. 4 The Court of Appeals noted, however, that the District Court was correct in its conclusion that there was no showing of a racial purpose or invidious intent in the adoption of the high school diploma requirement or general intelligence test and that these standards had been applied fairly to whites and Negroes alike. It held that, in the absence of a discriminatory purpose, use of such requirements was permitted by the Act. In so doing, the Court of Appeals rejected the claim that because these two requirements operated to render ineligible a markedly disproportionate number of Negroes, they were unlawful under Title VII unless shown to be job related. 5 We granted the writ on these claims. 399 U.S. 926 .

What were the departments of the Dan River plant?

The plant was organized into five operating departments: (1) Labor, (2) Coal Handling, (3) Operations, (4) Maintenance, and (5) Laboratory and Test. Negroes were employed only in the Labor Department where the highest paying jobs paid less than the lowest paying jobs in the other four "operating" departments in which only whites were employed. 2 Promotions were normally made within each department on the basis of job seniority. Transferees into a department usually began in the lowest position.

What was the purpose of Title VII?

It was to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove [401 U.S. 424, 430] barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employees over other employees. Under the Act, practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to "freeze" the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices.

What was the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Congress provided, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for class actions for enforcement of provisions of the Act and this proceeding was brought by a group of incumbent Negro employees against Duke Power Company.

Overview

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. It is generally considered the first case of its type.
The Supreme Court ruled that the company's employment requirements did not pertain to applic…

Facts

Judgment

Significance

See also

Notes

External links