Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

Definition

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1971 that addressed employment discrimination and set a significant precedent regarding employment testing and its relation to civil rights. The ruling determined that a company's requirement for high school diplomas and standardized tests for hiring and promotions could disproportionately exclude minority applicants, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case emphasized the importance of ensuring that employment practices do not unintentionally discriminate against protected classes.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The Supreme Court's decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. established that employment practices must be related to job performance and not result in discrimination against minority groups.
2. The ruling shifted the burden of proof onto employers to demonstrate that their employment tests were necessary for the job and did not disproportionately impact protected classes.
3. The case arose from Duke Power's policy that required a high school diploma and passing scores on two standardized tests for certain jobs, which adversely affected African American applicants.
4. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. reinforced the concept of 'disparate impact,' allowing individuals to challenge discriminatory practices even without proving intentional discrimination.
5. This case has had a lasting impact on how employers design and implement hiring practices and assessments, pushing for greater fairness in the workplace.

Review Questions

• How did Griggs v. Duke Power Co. change the landscape of employment testing and discrimination laws?
  • Griggs v. Duke Power Co. changed the landscape by establishing that employment testing must be directly related to job performance and should not disproportionately affect minority groups. The Supreme Court ruled that such tests could violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if they resulted in disparate impact without a valid justification related to job requirements. This case shifted the burden of proof to employers, requiring them to demonstrate the necessity of their hiring criteria.
• Discuss the implications of the Griggs decision on employers' responsibilities regarding hiring practices.
  • The implications of the Griggs decision placed significant responsibilities on employers to ensure their hiring practices are fair and non-discriminatory. Employers must analyze their testing procedures and ensure they do not unfairly disadvantage any group, particularly those protected under Title VII. This ruling encourages companies to review and potentially revise their assessment methods to align with equitable employment standards and to avoid potential legal challenges related to discrimination.
• Evaluate the long-term effects of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. on civil rights litigation and workplace equality initiatives.
  • The long-term effects of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. on civil rights litigation have been profound, leading to a more vigilant approach toward workplace equality initiatives across various sectors. The case set a precedent for future lawsuits concerning discriminatory practices, encouraging individuals and advocacy groups to challenge unfair testing requirements and other hiring policies that might perpetuate inequality. Over time, this has prompted organizations to adopt more inclusive hiring practices, promote diversity within their workforce, and engage in ongoing training to mitigate bias, thus fostering a culture of equality in the workplace.

Related terms

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: A federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Disparate Impact: A legal theory in employment discrimination law that occurs when a seemingly neutral policy or practice disproportionately affects members of a protected class.

Employment Testing: Assessment methods used by employers to evaluate potential employees' qualifications, skills, or personality traits, which must be fair and non-discriminatory.