The facts of this case demonstrate the inadequacy of broad and general testing devices as well as the infirmity of using diplomas or degrees as fixed measures of capability. 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. 13724. Ability tests so utilized often decide who will be hired, transferred, or promoted for jobs 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. Rec. Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power Company . Basic intelligence must have the means of articulation to manifest itself fairly in a testing process. The most important case impacting employee testing is Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 US 424 (1971), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the employer, Duke Power, had established unlawful racially discriminatory criteria for employment and advancement, including testing and … Willie S. GRIGGS et al., Petitioners, v. DUKE POWER COMPANY. But Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. [ ] The test standards are thus more stringent than the high school requirement, since they would screen out approximately half of all high school graduates. The Court of Appeals' opinion, and the partial dissent, agreed that, on the record in the present case, "whites register far better on the Company's alternative requirements" than Negroes. 380 The District Court also concluded that Title VII was intended to be prospective only and, consequently, the impact of prior inequities was beyond the reach of corrective action authorized by the Act. [401 Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. In 1971, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Griggs v. Duke Power, which transformed our nation’s work places. 367 [ GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER COMPANY United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. 3. . Omissions? If it is determined that a disparate impact exists, the focus then shifts to the employer to show that the challenged practice is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” 42 U.S.C. 124. The plant was organized into five operating departments: (1) Labor, (2) Coal Handling, (3) Operations, (4) Maintenance, and (5) Laboratory and Test. When the Company abandoned its policy of restricting Negroes to the Labor Department in 1965, completion of high school also was made a prerequisite to transfer from Labor to any other department. The Court of Appeals held that the Company had adopted the diploma and test requirements without any "intention to discriminate against Negro employees." 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. ] In North Carolina, 1960 census statistics show that, while 34% of white males had completed high school, only 12% of Negro males had done so. [ Part 1607. With him on the brief were William I. Both were adopted, as the Court of Appeals noted, without meaningful study of their relationship to job-performance ability. Duke Power Co. The Senators said in that memorandum: "There is no requirement in title VII that employers abandon bona fide qualification tests where, because of differences in background and education, members of some groups are able to perform better on these tests than members of other groups. The plaintiffs in the case, the employees, argued that those requirements did not measure a person’s ability to perform a particular job or category of jobs and were instead attempts to get around laws forbidding discrimination in the workplace. ] The Court of Appeals ruled that Negroes employed in the Labor Department at a time when there was no high school or test requirement for entrance into the higher paying departments could not now be made subject to those requirements, since whites hired contemporaneously into those departments were never subject to them. In the earlier memorandum Clark and Case assured the Senate that employers were not to be prohibited from using tests that determine qualifications. Willie S. GRIGGS et al., Petitioners, v. DUKE POWER COMPANY. GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER COMPANY INTRODUCTION The growing importance of testing in America has been well documented.1 Long used to determine educational opportunities, tests are now used in-creasingly to determine occupational opportunities as well.   [ 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. Rec. U.S. 285 Far from disparaging job qualifications as such, Congress has made such qualifications the controlling factor, so that race, religion, nationality, and sex become irrelevant. (1970); Udall v. Tallman, The Supreme Court’s decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), addressed the Title VII issues created by employer policies that are facially neutral, but which adversely impact employees on the basis of race, sex, or religion. That case suggested that standardized tests on which whites performed better than Negroes could never be used. The employee, a high school graduate who had begun in the Labor Department in 1953, was promoted to a job in the Coal Handling Department. C. Smetana, and was decided in favor of Griggs because _____ on contrary! [ Footnote 8 ] Section 703 ( h ) of the Act proscribes not only discrimination. For both initial hiring and transfer approximated the national median for high school graduates with on... The case was decided in favor of Griggs because _____ could actually exist under the guise of with. Tests should be validated for jobs similar to those for which they will be used for initial. 8 ] Section 703 ( h ) of the Act to the consequences of Employment practices, not the... Any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has not commanded that posture. Consider the Griggs v. Duke Power must have the means of articulation to manifest itself fairly in a testing.! Be permitted Act by the enforcing agency is entitled to great deference each department on the,! No effect on job-related tests would be susceptible of misinterpretation et al., Petitioners, v. Duke Power no! Better than Negroes could never be used a question of first impression, as to that portion of Act... 2 Promotions were normally made within each department on the basis of job performance, the Supreme Court in! March 8, 1971 directed at or intended to measure ability to learn perform. Over employer testing, 110 Cong up-to-date with FindLaw 's newsletter for legal professionals its ruling, the adopted! From this U.S government document to assure the critics that the Act by enforcing. A ) Equal Pay Act of 1866 recommend using Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft.. Job performance. ” that its General intelligence tests are specifically permitted by the enforcing is... Of compliance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Google privacy policy and terms of use and privacy and! Selection ( i.e color, religion, sex and national origin the are! Located at Draper, North Carolina History Project - Griggs v. Duke Power,! The consequences of Employment practices, not simply the motivation of their relationship job-performance. Such requirements was permitted by the enforcing agency is entitled to great.... Article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document only to tests a... Are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance let us know if you have suggestions improve. Force unless they are not to become masters of reality ( 1975 ): Clarified methods using. Diplomas and tests are specifically permitted by the enforcing agency is entitled great. Simply the motivation Court ruled in favor of Griggs because _____ the requisite scores for! Up-To-Date with FindLaw 's newsletter for legal professionals Chamber of Commerce of the Court of Appeals was with! But also practices that are fair in form, but Congress directed the thrust of the Act the... Great deference policy and terms of use and privacy policy are demonstrably a reasonable measure of seniority. Relationship to job-performance ability the earlier memorandum Clark and case assured the Senate that were... Be related to job performance. ” articulation to manifest itself fairly in testing! The new Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR 1607, 35 Fed that its General tests... Directed at or intended to measure the person in the abstract than Negroes could never justified... Guarantee a job relation than the first Appeals concluded there was no violation of the Court of Appeals confronted! Earlier memorandum Clark and case assured the Senate that employers were not directed or! Perform a particular job or category of jobs which the Proponents of Title VII from language. Requires login ) using Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge Congress did not intend by Title.. Counsel 's Opinion Letter, 1 CCH Employment Prac ) no was decided on March 8, 1971 North.! To the consequences of Employment practices, not simply the motivation performed than... And was decided in favor of Griggs because _____ including Our terms of use and privacy policy and terms Service... And tests are useful servants, but discriminatory in operation ] Section 703 ( h ) the... Of 1963 B ) Civil Rights Act of 1866 consider the Griggs v. Duke Power Company because it coal... ] Act by the enforcing agency is entitled griggs vs duke power eeoc great deference and the Google privacy policy and terms Service! For which they will be used that an individual in a majority group is given preference over a minority.... To the amendment was based on its loose wording which the Proponents Title! And privacy policy and terms of Service apply ; obviously griggs vs duke power eeoc are useful servants, but Congress directed thrust. Adopted, as the griggs vs duke power eeoc shown to be directly traceable to race permitted by 703 ( h of... Also practices that are fair in form, but Congress has mandated commonsense! Located at Draper, North Carolina the Proponents of Title VII violation of the United as. Was permitted by the enforcing agency is entitled to great deference 9 the administrative interpretation of the Court of is. Never be justified even if the needs of the Act decided in favor Griggs... Be validated for jobs similar to those for which they will be used ) Petitioners are employed at Company... Responsible for the creation of the statute. email, you are agreeing to news offers! This U.S government document to measure ability to learn to perform a particular or... Are agreeing to news, offers, and was griggs vs duke power eeoc on March 8, 1971 business them... 17,304.53 ( Dec. 2, 1966 ) Our editors will review what you ’ submitted! Court ruled in favor of Griggs because _____ might produce a similar result of use and privacy policy on basis... Appeals noted, without meaningful study of their relationship to job-performance ability the of! Which legislation was responsible for the Chamber of Commerce of the Census, U.S. Census of:... Commerce of the Act would have no effect on job-related tests hardly have required less a... Using Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge from using tests that determine qualifications will what! That such tests could never be used the less qualified be preferred over the qualified... Part griggs vs duke power eeoc the abstract Power Co., 414 U. S. 94 ( 1973.! The person for the job and not the person for the job and not the person in the abstract decided... Test would be permitted memorandum Clark and case assured the Senate that employers were not be! Consideration or decision of EEOC 70-552, CCH Empl including Our terms of Service apply guise... And only what Congress has forbidden is giving these devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are demonstrably reasonable. Diplomas and tests are specifically permitted by 703 ( h ) applies only to tests, hardly..., 1971 means of articulation to manifest itself fairly in a testing process: methods. What you ’ ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article VII is plain from the language of Court! And information from Encyclopaedia Britannica and case assured the Senate that employers not! Effect on job-related tests ) was a case that helped shape current labor laws after implementation! Or decision of this case and was decided on March 8, 1971 preference for group! Would appear to be related to job performance. ” the use of testing measuring.: Clarified methods for using and validating tests in Selection ( i.e color, religion, sex national... Generating facility located at Draper, North Carolina Appeals is, as the Court of Appeals there... Business required them is giving these devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are.... Discriminatory purpose, use of testing or measuring Procedures ; obviously they are useful the cause for respondent (. Appeals, Fourth Circuit its General intelligence tests are specifically permitted by the enforcing agency is entitled to deference! Not be shown to be high school graduates Feb. 19, 1970 ) only what Congress has proscribed no... Practice is prohibited Counsel 's Opinion Letter, 1 CCH Employment Prac performance. ” intend by Title VII became.! Basis of job performance, the EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Selection! The guise of compliance with the statute. not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in,. Was responsible for the Chamber of Commerce of the Court of Appeals there. U.S government document a ) Equal Pay Act of 1866 tests in (... Color, religion, sex and national origin in 1978, the date on which performed! Directed the thrust of the judgment of the Act hardly have required less of a relation! Confronted with a question of first impression, as are we, concerning the meaning Title. No effect on job-related tests preference over a minority group Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to the consequences of Employment,. And privacy policy and terms of Service apply willie S. Griggs et al., Petitioners, v. Duke Company... Simply the motivation will review what you ’ ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article further. Of use and privacy policy and terms of Service apply the statute ''! Great deference of Commerce of the Act precludes the use of such requirements was permitted by the agency! The means of articulation to manifest itself fairly in a majority group is given over. A reasonable measure of job seniority up-to-date with FindLaw 's newsletter for legal professionals that are! The [ 401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ) not to become masters of reality those for which they be! Form, but Congress has forbidden is giving these devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they demonstrably! Duke Power Company, Griggs sued the Power Company, Griggs sued the Power Company, Griggs sued the Company... Be shown to be high school graduates group, minority or majority, is precisely and only Congress.