Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 14, 1970
Decided March 8, 1971
Full case name: Griggs et al. v. Duke Power Co.
Citations: 401 U.S. 424
Prior history: Reversed in part, 420 F.2d 1225. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit, granted.
Subsequent history: 420 F.2d 1225, reversed in part.
Holding
Broad aptitude tests used in hiring practices that disparately impact ethnic minorities must be reasonably related to the job.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, John Marshall Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun
Case opinions
Majority by: Burger
Joined by: unanimous court
Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Civil Rights Act of 1964

Contents

[edit] Introduction

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the United States Supreme Court on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and was decided on March 8, 1971.

[edit] Prior History

Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Duke Power had openly used methods of segregating employees according to race; specifically, at its Dan River plant, blacks were only allowed to work in its Labor department, which constituted the lowest-paying positions in the company. After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the company changed its policies, expanding its requirement of a high school diploma for positions in areas other than the Labor department, which eliminated a large number of black applicants for those positions.

[edit] Case

The Court ruled against a procedure used by the company when selecting employees for internal transfer and promotion to certain positions, namely requiring a high school education and certain scores on broad aptitude tests. African-American applicants, less likely to hold a high school diploma and averaging lower scores on the aptitude tests, were selected at a much lower rate for these positions compared to white candidates.

The Court found 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 is 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.) As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as the controlling factor in employment decisions) that are not a "reasonable measure of job performance," regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate. Since the aptitude tests involved (and the high school diploma required) were broad-based and not directly related to the jobs performed, Duke Power Company's employee transfer procedure was found in violation by the Court.

[edit] Subsequent History

Griggs also held that the employer has the burden of producing and proving the business necessity of any testing. However, in 1989, in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 657 (1989), the Court reduced the employer's burden to only producing evidence of business justification. In 1991, Congress amended The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and overturned that portion of the Wards Cove decision.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

v • d • e
Affirmative action in the United States
Supreme Court decisions
Federal legislation and edicts
State initiatives
Proposition 209 (CA, 1996) • Initiative 200 (WA, 1998) • Proposal 2 (MI, 2006)
People