--- title: "Griggs v. Duke Power Co. | Civil Rights" description: "Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is the 1971 case that recognized disparate impact under Title VII when hiring rules unfairly excluded Black applicants." canonical: "https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/griggs-v-duke-power-co" type: "key-term" subject: "Civil Rights and Civil Liberties" unit: "Unit 8" --- # Griggs v. Duke Power Co. | Civil Rights ## Definition Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a 1971 Supreme Court case in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties that said hiring rules can be illegal even without overt bias if they have a discriminatory effect. It established disparate impact under Title VII. ## What It Is Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is the Supreme Court case that made discrimination law in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties bigger than just obvious, intentional racism. The Court said an employer can violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 even if the rule does not mention race, as long as it shuts out Black applicants at a much higher rate without a strong job-related reason. The case came from Duke Power Company, which had a long history of openly segregated practices. After legal segregation was challenged, the company replaced some of its old barriers with facially neutral requirements, like a high school diploma and certain intelligence tests, for jobs in the higher-paying departments. On paper, those rules looked fair. In practice, they screened out many African American workers who had been denied equal educational opportunities under segregation. The Court’s response was simple but powerful: if a hiring rule has a discriminatory effect, the employer may need to justify it. That is where the idea of disparate impact comes in. Disparate impact means a policy can be illegal because of what it does, not just because of what it says. The focus shifts from the employer’s stated intent to the real-world outcome. This is a big deal in employment discrimination because many modern barriers are not written in openly racist language. A test, degree requirement, background check, or credential rule can look neutral while still reinforcing unequal access. Griggs tells you to ask whether the rule measures something related to the job, or whether it just keeps certain groups out. A good way to picture the case is this: if a company says everyone must pass a test, the next question is not just whether the test is the same for everyone. The real question is whether the test actually predicts job performance and whether it excludes people in a way that reflects unequal opportunity. If the answer is no, the policy may be discriminatory even without explicit racist wording. ## Why It Matters Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is one of the clearest examples of how civil rights law looks at structural discrimination, not just open prejudice. In this subject, that shift matters because so much inequality appears through neutral rules that have uneven effects. The case gives you a legal tool for spotting when a policy seems fair on the surface but still reproduces racial inequality. It also connects directly to employment discrimination doctrine. When you see a hiring rule, a promotion standard, or a screening test in a case study, Griggs pushes you to ask two questions: Does the rule relate to actual job performance, and does it exclude a protected group at a much higher rate? That analysis shows up again and again in disputes over education requirements, testing, and employer screening. The case also helps explain the difference between equal treatment and equal opportunity. Treating everyone the same is not always enough if some groups start with fewer chances because of past discrimination. Griggs is the reason civil rights law can challenge systems that keep inequality going through supposedly neutral standards. For the broader course, the case is a bridge between constitutional ideals and real workplace power. It fits with equal protection thinking, but it comes from statutory law under Title VII, so it shows how Congress and the courts work together to limit discrimination. ## Connections ### Disparate Impact This is the main legal idea that Griggs helped establish. A policy can be discriminatory if it disproportionately harms a protected group, even when there is no explicit racist intent. In class, this is the concept you use when a rule seems neutral but the outcomes are not. ### Title VII Griggs interprets Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans employment discrimination. The case shows that Title VII reaches beyond obvious discrimination and can cover hiring standards that function as barriers. If you are reading a workplace case, Title VII is usually the statute you check first. ### Employment Testing The Duke Power dispute was partly about intelligence tests and diploma requirements. That makes Griggs a classic case for thinking about employment testing: a test is not automatically fair just because it is standardized. You have to ask whether it is tied to job performance or just filters out applicants. ### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) The EEOC is the federal agency students often connect to workplace discrimination enforcement. Griggs helps explain why the EEOC cares about policies with unequal outcomes, not only explicit slurs or obvious exclusion. In later cases and complaints, the agency looks for evidence of disparate impact and whether the employer can defend the rule. ## On the AP Exam A case ID question or short essay usually asks you to connect Griggs to a hiring policy and explain why it is unconstitutional or illegal under employment discrimination law. Look for a rule that sounds neutral, like a diploma requirement or an aptitude test, and then explain the unequal effect it has on a protected group. The best answer names disparate impact, says the policy must be job related, and points out that intent is not required when the effect is discriminatory. If you get a compare-and-contrast prompt, pair Griggs with cases about intentional discrimination or later workplace protections. That lets you show the difference between overt bias and structural barriers. In a passage analysis, underline the policy, the group harmed, and whether the employer can justify the requirement with a real job connection. ## Griggs v. Duke Power Co. vs Disparate Impact People sometimes mix up the case and the doctrine. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is the Supreme Court case, while disparate impact is the legal principle the case helped establish. If a question asks for the case, name Griggs; if it asks for the idea, define disparate impact. ## Key Takeaways - Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is the 1971 Supreme Court case that made employment discrimination law look at effects, not just intent. - The Court said that a neutral hiring rule can still violate Title VII if it excludes Black applicants at a higher rate without a strong job-related reason. - The case established the doctrine of disparate impact, which is a major tool for spotting structural discrimination. - Tests, diploma requirements, and other screening standards are not automatically lawful just because they apply to everyone on paper. - In Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Griggs is a core example of how the law deals with unequal outcomes in the workplace. ## FAQs ### What is Griggs v. Duke Power Co. in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties? It is a 1971 Supreme Court case about employment discrimination. The Court ruled that a company can violate Title VII even when its hiring rules are neutral on their face if they have a discriminatory effect on Black applicants. ### What does Griggs v. Duke Power Co. say about intelligence tests? The case said employers cannot rely on intelligence tests or diploma requirements unless those standards are actually related to job performance. If the test mostly shuts out a protected group and does not measure what the job requires, it can be illegal. ### Is Griggs about intentional discrimination or impact? It is mainly about impact. That is why it matters so much in civil rights law: an employer does not need to say something openly racist for a rule to be discriminatory if the rule creates a harmful unequal effect. ### How do I use Griggs on a test question? Look for a scenario involving hiring standards, screening tests, or degree requirements. Then explain that the policy may be illegal if it has a disparate impact and is not clearly job related. That is the core move the case teaches. ## Related Study Guides - [8.1 Employment discrimination](/civil-rights-civil-liberties/unit-8/employment-discrimination/study-guide/WeFikl5jB4iNlsBe) - [12.3 Artificial intelligence and discrimination](/civil-rights-civil-liberties/unit-12/artificial-intelligence-discrimination/study-guide/ZXuoQc0VVePhnpQk) ## About This Document Canonical Fiveable pages are available as Markdown at the same path plus `.md`. - [llms.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms.txt): index of Fiveable's sections and URL patterns - [llms-full.txt](https://fiveable.me/llms-full.txt): complete subject and unit listing - [MCP server](https://fiveable.me/mcp): call Fiveable as tools instead of fetching pages (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp`) - [MCP server for AP teachers](https://fiveable.me/mcp/teachers): a teacher's classes, assignments and AP-rubric grading (`https://fiveable.me/api/mcp/teacher`) ## Structured Data ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"LearningResource","@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/griggs-v-duke-power-co#resource","name":"Griggs v. Duke Power Co. | Civil Rights","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/griggs-v-duke-power-co","learningResourceType":"Concept explainer","educationalLevel":"AP® / High School","about":{"@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/griggs-v-duke-power-co#term"},"audience":{"@type":"EducationalAudience","educationalRole":"student"},"dateModified":"2026-07-03T02:21:15.319Z","isPartOf":{"@type":"Collection","name":"Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Fiveable","url":"https://fiveable.me"}},{"@type":"DefinedTerm","@id":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/griggs-v-duke-power-co#term","name":"Griggs v. Duke Power Co.","description":"Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a 1971 Supreme Court case in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties that said hiring rules can be illegal even without overt bias if they have a discriminatory effect. It established disparate impact under Title VII.","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms/griggs-v-duke-power-co","inDefinedTermSet":{"@type":"DefinedTermSet","name":"Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Key Terms","url":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms"}},{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What is Griggs v. Duke Power Co. in Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It is a 1971 Supreme Court case about employment discrimination. The Court ruled that a company can violate Title VII even when its hiring rules are neutral on their face if they have a discriminatory effect on Black applicants."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What does Griggs v. Duke Power Co. say about intelligence tests?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The case said employers cannot rely on intelligence tests or diploma requirements unless those standards are actually related to job performance. If the test mostly shuts out a protected group and does not measure what the job requires, it can be illegal."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is Griggs about intentional discrimination or impact?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It is mainly about impact. That is why it matters so much in civil rights law: an employer does not need to say something openly racist for a rule to be discriminatory if the rule creates a harmful unequal effect."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How do I use Griggs on a test question?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Look for a scenario involving hiring standards, screening tests, or degree requirements. Then explain that the policy may be illegal if it has a disparate impact and is not clearly job related. That is the core move the case teaches."}}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Civil Rights and Civil Liberties","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Key Terms","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/key-terms"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Unit 8","item":"https://fiveable.me/civil-rights-civil-liberties/unit-8"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"Griggs v. Duke Power Co."}]}]} ```