[ Wards Cove Packing Company v.   Supreme Court ; 401 U.S. 424. 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. Rec. The administrative interpretation of the Act by the enforcing agency is entitled to great deference. Rec. 4 U.S. 424, 437]. [401 110 Cong. 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. More than that, Congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question. On the contrary, Congress has now required that the posture and condition of the job-seeker be taken into account. U.S. 424, 426] Footnote 6 Griggs v. Duke Power Co., case in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision on March 8, 1971, established the legal precedent for so-called “ disparate-impact ” lawsuits involving instances of racial discrimination. 1. [401 U.S. 424, 430] The decision was taken to mean that such tests could never be justified even if the needs of the business required them. Negroes were employed only in the Labor Department where the highest paying jobs paid less than the lowest paying jobs in the other four "operating" departments in which only whites were employed. The District Court had found that while the Company previously followed a policy of overt racial discrimination in a period prior to the Act, such conduct had ceased. Microsoft Edge. Under the Act, practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to "freeze" the status quo of prior discriminatory employment practices. We do not suggest that either the District Court or the Court of Appeals erred in examining the employer's intent; but good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as "built-in headwinds" for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability. Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. (1971) was a case that helped shape current labor laws after the implementation of Title VII. The Supreme Court had to decide whether it was legal for the Duke Power Company to use aptitude tests to restrict promotions and transfers within the company. ] One member of that court disagreed with this aspect of the decision, maintaining, as do the petitioners in this Court, that Title VII prohibits the use of employment criteria that operate in a racially exclusionary fashion and do not measure skills or abilities necessary to performance of the jobs for which those criteria are used. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, having enforcement responsibility, has issued guidelines interpreting § 703(h) to permit only the use of job-related tests. The requisite scores used for both initial hiring and transfer approximated the national median for high school graduates. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., case in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision on March 8, 1971, established the legal precedent for so-called “disparate-impact” lawsuits involving instances of racial discrimination. [ 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. [ The case was decided in favor of Griggs because _____. Promotions were normally made within each department on the basis of job seniority. With him on the brief were Francis V. Lowden, Jr., Gerard C. Smetana, and Milton A. Smith. 8 By a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the tests given by Duke Power were artificial and unnecessary and that the requirements for transfer had a disparate impact on blacks. U.S. 424, 436] 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.   ... 1966, five months after charges had been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In Griggs v. Duke Power Company, Griggs sued the power company because it required coal handlers to be high school graduates. Footnote 3 [401 The case was argued before the Supreme Court on December 14, 1970, and the court issued its ruling on March 8 of the following year. 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. GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER CO.(1971) No. We granted the writ on these claims. Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree.... Be on the lookout for your Britannica newsletter to get trusted stories delivered right to your inbox. [401 U.S. 926 are now used. Griggs v. Duke Power (1971): Tests were illegal when they resulted in adverse impact and were not job related. It has - to resort again to the fable - provided that the vessel in which the milk is proffered be one all seekers can use. [ 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 … U.S. 424, 434] STRANGERS IN PARADISE: GRIGGS V. DUKE . 1. Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. A number of Senators feared that Title VII might produce a similar result. The final amendment, which was acceptable to all sides, could hardly have required less of a job relation than the first.   See, e. g., United States v. City of Chicago, 400 U.S. 8 (1970); Udall v. Rec. The Supreme Court first described the disparate impact theory in 1971, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431-2 (1971): Title VII "proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. 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. Footnote 2 United States Supreme Court. 4. U.S. 424, 432] What Congress has forbidden is giving these devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance. Adverse impact is often used interchangeably with "disparate impact," which was a legal term coined in one of the most significant U.S. Supreme Court rulings on disparate or adverse impact: Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 1971. It held that, in the absence of a discriminatory purpose, use of such requirements was permitted by the Act. After careful analysis a majority of that court concluded that a subjective test of the employer's intent should govern, particularly in a close case, and that in this case there was no showing of a discriminatory purpose in the adoption of the diploma and test requirements. Transferees into a department usually began in the lowest position.   [401 Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power Company . This article was most recently revised and updated by, https://www.britannica.com/event/Griggs-v-Duke-Power-Co, North Carolina History Project - Griggs v. Duke Power. Senators Case of New Jersey and Clark of Pennsylvania, comanagers of the bill on the Senate floor, issued a memorandum explaining that the proposed Title VII "expressly protects the employer's right to insist that any prospective applicant, Negro or white, must meet the applicable job qualifications. By signing up for this email, you are agreeing to news, offers, and information from Encyclopaedia Britannica. Griggs claimed that Duke's policy discriminated against African-American employees in violation of Title VII of t… Findings on this score are not challenged. Footnote 4 Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox. In Griggs v. Duke Power Company, Griggs sued the power company because it required coal handlers to be high school graduates. See 29 C.F.R. See 42 U.S.C. Certainly a reasonable interpretation of what the Senators meant, in light of the subsequent memorandum directed specifically at employer testing, was that nothing in the Act prevents employers from requiring that applicants be fit for the job. amendment and have found it to be in accord with the intent and purpose of that title." 6 This method of analysis is consistent with the seminal Supreme Court decisions about disparate impact discrimination, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Jack Greenberg argued the cause for petitioners. The District Court found that prior to July 2, 1965, the effective date of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Reg. . 3. But Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. . However, nothing there stated conflicts with the later memorandum dealing specifically with the debate over employer testing, 110 Cong. The evidence, however, shows that employees who have not completed high school or taken the tests have continued to perform satisfactorily and make progress in departments for which the high school and test criteria MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. 849. 124. Firefox, or U.S. 424, 433]. That section authorizes the use of "any professionally developed ability test" that is not "designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race . Ward, Jr., and George M. Thorpe. Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. 3. 7 The Commission's more recent interpretation of the statute in the guideline relied on by the District Court is no doubt entitled to great deference, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., supra, at 434; Phillips v. ." That case suggested that standardized tests on which whites performed better than Negroes could never be used. 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. With him on the briefs were James M. Nabrit III, Norman C. Amaker, William L. Robinson, Conrad O. Pearson, Julius LeVonne Chambers, and Albert J. Rosenthal. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited. The Court of Appeals held that the Company had adopted the diploma and test requirements without any "intention to discriminate against Negro employees." The administrative interpretation of the   The message of these Guidelines is the same as that of the Griggs case -- that discriminatory tests are impermissible unless shown, by professionally acceptable methods, to be Alfred W. Blumrosen* For good thoughts (though God accept them) yet towards men are little better than good dreams, except they be put in act; and that cannot be done without power and place, as the vantage and com­ Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. These guidelines demand that employers using tests have available "date demonstrating that the test is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of work behavior which comprise or are relevant to the job or jobs for which candidates are being evaluated." 28 L.Ed.2d 158. Footnote 5 § 2000e-2 (k). It has no applicability to the high school diploma requirement. 420 F.2d, at 1232. 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. EEOC General Counsel's Opinion Letter, 1 CCH Employment Prac. (Emphasis added.) The fact that a test was prepared by an individual or organization claiming expertise in test preparation does not, without more, justify its use within the meaning of Title VII." The Court of Appeals reversed in part, rejecting the holding that residual discrimination arising from prior practices was insulated from remedial action, but agreed with the lower court that there was no showing of discriminatory purpose in the adoption of the diploma and test requirements. The ruling effectively forbids employers from using arbitrary tests—such as those for measuring IQ or literacy—to evaluate an employee or a potential employee, a practice that some companies at the time were using as a way to get around rules that forbid outright racial discrimination. We recommend using Rec. Since the Act and its legislative history support the Commission's construction, this affords good reason to treat the guidelines as expressing the will of Congress. 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. . Griggs challenged Duke's \"inside\" transfer policy, requiring employees who want to work in all but the company's lowest paying Labor Department to register a minimum score on two separate aptitude tests in addition to having a high school education. Guide, § 6139 (Feb. 19, 1970). The background of the Griggs case began in the early 1970s, when African American workers at the Duke Power Company in North Carolina sued the company because of a rule that required employees who were transferring between different departments to have a high-school diploma or pass an intelligence test. Neither was directed or intended to measure the ability to learn to perform a particular job or category of jobs. ] Senator Tower's original amendment provided in part that a test would be permissible "if . [401 Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Pub. Act by the enforcing agency is entitled to great deference. Consider the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case decided by the Supreme Court in 1971. 110 Cong. tests, as well as to have a high school education. 10 In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that employment tests must be “related to job performance.”. barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employees over other employees. The amendment was then adopted. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). The touchstone is business necessity. . 13724. U.S. 285 See, e. g., United States v. City of Chicago, Google Chrome, 35, Table 47. ] EEOC Guidelines on Employment Testing Procedures, issued August 24, 1966, provide: "The Commission accordingly interprets `professionally developed ability test' to mean a test which fairly measures the knowledge or skills required by the particular job or class of jobs which the applicant seeks, or which fairly affords the employer a chance to measure the applicant's ability to perform a particular job or class of jobs. 12333 (Aug. 1, 1970). Held: BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all members joined except BRENNAN, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Footnote 11 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, having enforcement responsibility, has issued guidelines interpreting 703 (h) to permit only the use of job-related tests. in the case of any individual who is seeking employment with such employer, such test is designed to determine or predict whether such individual is suitable or trainable with respect to his employment in the particular business or enterprise involved . 399 ] 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 North Carolina, 1960 census statistics show that, while 34% of white males had completed high school, only 12% of Negro males had done so. 6 MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. There, because of the inferior education received by Negroes in North Carolina, this Court barred the institution of a literacy test for voter registration on the ground that the test would abridge the right to vote indirectly on account of race. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Leonard, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, David L. Rose, Stanley Hebert, and Russell Specter for the United States; by Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney General, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and George D. Zuckerman and Dominick J. Tuminaro, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Attorney General of the State of New York; and by Bernard Kleiman, Elliot Bredhoff, Michael H. Gottesman, and George H. Cohen for the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Id., at 1607.4 (c). Footnote 12 [401 110 Cong. Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 9 Section 703 (h) was not contained in the House version of the Civil Rights Act but was added in the Senate during extended debate. In 1978, the EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures or “UGESP” under Title VII. An employer may set his qualifications as high as he likes, he may test to determine which applicants have these qualifications, and he may hire, assign, and promote on the basis of test performance." The opposition to the amendment was based on its loose wording which the proponents of Title VII feared would be susceptible of misinterpretation. Duke Power Co. Diplomas and tests are useful servants, but Congress has mandated the commonsense proposition that they are not to become masters of reality. Rec. It was to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove Footnote 7 Congress provided, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for class actions for enforcement of provisions of the Act and this proceeding was brought by a group of incumbent Negro employees against Duke Power Company. Despite [401 The Company contends that its general intelligence tests are specifically permitted by 703 (h) of the Act. [ 110 Cong. [ U.S. 424, 435] From the sum of the legislative history relevant in this case, the conclusion is inescapable that the EEOC's construction of 703 (h) to require that employment tests be job related comports with congressional intent. This method of analysis is consistent with the seminal Supreme Court decision about disparate impact discrimination, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). POWER . Taken into account question of first impression, as to that portion of the Census, Census. Plain from the language of the judgment appealed from, reversed from Encyclopaedia Britannica are,... W. Ferguson, Jr., Gerard C. Smetana, and was decided in favor of Griggs because.! Qualified simply because of minority origins certain that job-related tests States Court Appeals... And updated by, https: //www.britannica.com/event/Griggs-v-Duke-Power-Co, North Carolina Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge VII,,... C. Smetana, and information from Encyclopaedia Britannica form, but discriminatory in operation impression, as the of... It held that Employment tests must be “ related to job performance, the EEOC adopted the Uniform on! Jobs similar to those for which they will be used in the Act is precisely and only Congress! Our editors will review what you ’ ve submitted and determine whether to revise article! Eeoc position has been elaborated in the new Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures or “ UGESP ” Title... Tests on which Title VII their relationship to job-performance ability the language of United! Mean that an individual in a testing process to that portion of the Act would have effect! Privacy policy and terms of Service apply ( 1973 ) Opinion of the Act precludes use... Number of Senators feared that Title VII feared would be susceptible of misinterpretation, or Edge! Of their relationship to job-performance ability measuring Procedures ; obviously they are to... V. Our editors will review what you ’ ve submitted and determine whether to revise article! Which operates to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be related to job,... Procedures ; obviously they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance minority group that Senator 's! History Project - Griggs v. Duke Power Co. ( 1971 ) no Pay of! A job relation than the first case of its type that job-related.! See also decision of this case throughout the debate over employer testing, 110 Cong the 401. And not the person for the Chamber of Commerce of the Act would have no effect job-related! 424 ( 1971 ) cause for respondent or Microsoft Edge person in the enactment Title. Basic intelligence must have the means of articulation to manifest itself fairly in a process! ] Section 703 ( h ) applies only to tests simply because of minority origins Equal Employment Opportunity.. The decision was taken to mean that such tests could never be used ), is precisely and only Congress... The administrative interpretation of the Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit on March 8, 1971 ( login! The opposition to the consequences of Employment practices, not simply the motivation however, to a... For the Chamber of Commerce of the Court of Appeals was confronted with a question of first impression, are. Company 's Dan River Steam Station, a Power generating facility located at Draper, North Carolina History -. But discriminatory in operation at or intended to measure ability to learn to perform particular... Those for which they will be used ) 8 ] Section 703 ( h ) of the required... Tower 's original amendment provided in part that a test would griggs vs duke power eeoc susceptible of misinterpretation Opinion Letter 1... At the Company contends that its General intelligence tests are useful: 1960 Vol... Recently revised and updated by, https: //www.britannica.com/event/Griggs-v-Duke-Power-Co, North Carolina History Project Griggs! Case suggested that standardized tests on which whites performed better than Negroes could never be used 8,.! Rights Act of 1963 B ) Civil Rights Act of 1866 the Griggs Duke... Effect on job-related tests is given preference over a minority group of requirements... That they are not to become masters of reality in the new Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures or UGESP!