Case Study:
Griggs v Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
1) Reference Details Jurisdiction: United States of America, the United States Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit Date of Decision: 8 March 1971 Case Status:
2) Facts Griggs was a class action brought by 13 black employees at the respondent’s Dan River Steam Station, Draper, North Carolina.
The respondent was the Duke Power Company. The applicants sought to challenge the respondent’s discriminatory practice of requiring a high school diploma or the passing of an intelligence/aptitude test to secure promotion and consequently an increase in pay. Prior to the Civil Rights Act 1964 Duke Power Co. had only allowed black employees to work in the lowest paid department of its plant at Dan River. Post 1964, Duke Power Co., in practice, continued to limit its black employees to the lowest paid jobs by using educational requirements and tests as a condition for transfer into better paid positions in different departments. The applicants contended that the “requirements were not directed at or intended to measure ability to learn to perform a particular job or category of job.” Duke Power Co. denied the existence of any discriminatory practices against its black employees. The respondent justified its educational and testing criteria on s. 703(h) of the Civil Rights Act 1964, which allowed “professionally developed ability test[s]…provided that it is not designed, intended, or used to discriminate.” At first instance, a District Court “found that the respondent’s former policy of racial discrimination had ended.” On appeal the District Court’s decision was partially reversed on the grounds that “residual discrimination arising from prior practices was insulated from remedial action.” The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s ruling that “there was no showing of discriminatory purpose in the adoption of the diploma and test requirements.” The Court of Appeals also “rejected the claim that because a disproportionate number of Negroes were rendered ineligible for promotion, transfer, or employment, the requirements were unlawful unless shown to be job related.”
3) Law National legislation • Civil Rights Act 1964, Title VII
4) Legal Arguments The Applicants 2 The applicants argued that Duke Power Co. had acted contrary to the Civil Rights Act 1964, Title VII, s. 703(a), which states: “(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The alleged violation was on the basis that Duke Power Company’s high school diploma and test requirement discriminated against black employees. As in practice black candidates were disproportionately unable to fulfill such criteria. Duke Power Co. claimed that its use of intelligence testing and high school diploma requirements did not discriminate against the applicants. As such practices were consistent with s. 703(h) of the Civil Rights Act 1964. Section 703 states: “(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It shall not be an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of section 206(d) of Title 29.”
5) Decisions The Court unanimously held1 that the applicants had been discriminated against contrary to the Civil Rights Act. The Court reasoned that:
“1. The Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as in here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer’s lack of discriminatory intent.
2. The Act does not preclude the use of testing or measuring procedures, but it does proscribe giving them controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance.” Brennan J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
3 The Court declared that the practices of Duke Power Co. affected African Americans disproportionately, as they were less likely to have a high school diploma and had a lower average score in the tests at issue. In cases where employment practices have a disproportionate effect on minority groups the Court held it was for businesses to demonstrate and prove that such practices were necessary and had no ulterior motive. This case marked the inauguration of the concept of disparate impact (or indirect discrimination) into anti-discrimination law discourse.
Based on the above case please answer these questions:
Q1. Does the case make sense to you? Why? Why not?
Q2. The Court said the employer's intent does not matter here, should it? Explain
Q3. Who would be your biggest concern as an employer who read this decision?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format and also include references.