Griggs v. Duke Power (Employment Discrim.)
Legal Issues
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
Overview
Overview
The Supreme Court held that employment practices neutral on their face violate Title VII if they have a disparate impact on protected classes.
The Facts
Facts
Griggs and other Black employees of Duke Power sued after the company implemented a high school diploma requirement and standardized test requirement for job transfers and promotions. These requirements were not shown to be job-related and screened out a significantly higher percentage of Black applicants than white applicants. Duke Power had a history of overt racial discrimination before Title VII became effective.
The Issue
Issue
Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits facially neutral employment practices, educational requirements and standardized testing, that disproportionately disqualify Black workers even when the employer demonstrates no discriminatory intent.
The Rules
Rule
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), established the disparate impact theory of employment discrimination: Title VII prohibits any employment practice that operates to exclude protected groups unless the employer demonstrates the requirement is related to job performance. Intent to discriminate is not required. Discriminatory effect is sufficient. Congress codified disparate impact liability in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
The Application
Duke Power's diploma and test requirements created a disparate impact by screening out Black applicants at substantially higher rates than white applicants, even though applied equally and without stated discriminatory intent. The Court examined whether Duke Power could justify these requirements as related to job performance or business necessity the employer's burden under disparate impact analysis and found no such evidence. Because Duke Power could not demonstrate job-relatedness despite the significant disparate impact, the requirements violated Title VII, establishing that discriminatory effect alone suffices for liability. The decision reversed prior doctrine that required proof of intentional discrimination, instead making employer justification of disparate outcomes the path to legal compliance.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
The Supreme Court unanimously held that Title VII prohibits employment practices that have a disparate impact on protected classes, even if facially neutral and applied equally. The Court established that employers must demonstrate that employment requirements are job-related and consistent with business necessity. This landmark decision created the disparate impact theory of discrimination under Title VII.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support