what did the supreme court say about the use of tests in griggs v duke power

In Griggs v. Duke Power (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, tests measuring intelligence could not be used in hiring and firing decisions. The court established a legal precedent for "disparate impact" lawsuits in which criteria unfairly burdens a particular group, even if it appears neutral.

Full Answer

What is the significance of Griggs v Duke Power?

Home » Encyclopedia Entry » Griggs v. Duke Power. Griggs v. Duke Power Company was a landmark employment discrimination case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. It concerned the legality, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of high school diplomas and intelligence test scores as prerequisites for employment.

What was the Supreme Court decision in Griggs v Griggs?

The U.S. Supreme Court finally heard the case in late 1970, and Justice Burger’s opinion took several months to draft. The court overturned the rulings of the lower courts, deciding in favor of Griggs. Intelligence test scores and diplomas as requirements for employment, the court ruled, are not in themselves illegal under Title VII.

What did the Supreme Court rule in Duke V Duke?

Duke Power (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that, under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, tests measuring intelligence could not be used in hiring and firing decisions. The court established a legal precedent for "disparate impact" lawsuits in which criteria unfairly burdens a particular group, even if it appears neutral.

Are Duke Power intelligence tests unlawful under Title VII?

After the case moved beyond the district level, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the intelligence tests administered by Duke Power did not reflect any discriminatory intent and thus were not unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Which court ruled that Duke Power's intelligence tests were not unlawful?

After the case moved beyond the district level, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the intelligence tests administered by Duke Power did not reflect any discriminatory intent and thus were not unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Why was Duke Power's diploma and testing requirements illegal?

The Supreme Court ruled that Duke Power’s diploma and testing requirements were illegal because they had discriminatory consequences, founding a legal standard now known as "disparate impact." Before Griggs, employees or job applicants who accused employers of racial discrimination had to prove discriminatory intent to have success in litigation; after Griggs, those claiming discrimination had to prove only discriminatory effects of hiring or advancement practices.

What test did Duke Power require?

Later that year, Duke Power began allowing non-high-school graduates to transfer from Labor to other departments if they could register sufficient scores on the Wonderlic Test, which rates general mental ability, and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test , which is intended to predict job performance in mechanical fields. The scores that Duke Power required on each test were national median scores for high school graduates. The plaintiffs, Duke Power, and all courts that heard the case agreed that whites fared better than African-Americans on these intelligence tests. The tests thus put African-Americans at a disadvantage to whites in Duke Power’s hiring and advancement, and this disadvantage prompted the plaintiffs’ suit.

What was the Duke Power case?

Duke Power. Written by North Carolina History Project. Griggs v. Duke Power Company was a landmark employment discrimination case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. It concerned the legality, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of high school diplomas and intelligence test scores as prerequisites for employment.

Where did the Duke Power lawsuit originate?

The case originated in a lawsuit filed by Willie Griggs and twelve other African-American employees of Duke Power’s Dan River hydroelectric plant in Draper, North Carolina. Before the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Duke Power discriminated against African-Americans in hiring and promotion, restricting them to the company’s Labor department.

When did Burger v. Griggs case come to a conclusion?

The U.S. Supreme Court finally heard the case in late 1970, and Justice Burger’s opinion took several months to draft. The court overturned the rulings of the lower courts, deciding in favor of Griggs. Intelligence test scores and diplomas as requirements for employment, the court ruled, are not in themselves illegal under Title VII.

Is a diploma for intelligence test illegal?

Intelligence test scores and diplomas as requirements for employment, the court ruled, are not in themselves illegal under Title VII. Nevertheless, when diploma and test requirements (a) limit ethnic minority hiring and (b) do not pertain to job skills or performance, these requirements are illegal.

What was the Griggs v Duke Power Co case?

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. It is generally considered the first case of its type.

Why was the literacy test barred in North Carolina?

United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969). 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.

What was the Ginsburg dissent in Ricci v. DeStefano?

Justice Ginsburg 's dissent in Ricci v. DeStefano suggests that the Griggs conclusion (that Congress aimed beyond "disparate treatment"; it targeted "disparate impact" as well and proscribed not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation) has been effectively overturned by the Ricci decision.

What is the disparate impact test?

The Supreme Court ruled 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 was 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.)

What is the purpose of Title VII?

As such, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment tests (when used as a decisive factor in employment decisions) that are not a "reasonable measure of job performance," regardless of the absence of actual intent to discriminate.

What did the Supreme Court rule about the employment requirements of black employees?

The Supreme Court ruled that the company's employment requirements did not pertain to applicants' ability to perform the job, and so were unintentionally discriminating against black employees. The judgment famously held that " 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 ."

What was the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test?

The Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test was a test of mechanical aptitude, and the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test was an IQ test measuring general intelligence .

What did Willie Griggs sue Duke Power?

In 1970, Willie Griggs sued Duke Power Company alleging that their transfer policy and mandatory aptitude tests discriminated against Black employees. Specifically, he claimed they were violating Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by discriminating in the hiring process based on race.

What was the Supreme Court's decision on Duke?

They determined that neither of the requirements established by the company was truly designed to test one’s ability to work. Rather, the Court ruled that “the illegal, purpose of these requirements was to safeguard Duke’s long-standing policy of giving job preferences to its white employees.” This decision was a massive win for civil rights activists. It affirmed that hiring discrimination did not have to be explicit, but instead could encompass more indirect and subtle measures.

What was the case Lewis v Chicago?

Duke Power Company was decided, in the case Lewis v. Chicago, Black firefighters sued the city of Chicago for implementing a racially biased written test. The city initially threw out the complaint claiming that it was not filed in time to qualify for a Title VII violation. However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, they again affirmed minority rights in the hiring process by ruling that the claim was legitimate and substantial.

Is Griggs v Duke still being contested?

In fact, the rights reinforced in Griggs v. Duke Power Company are still being contested today. Gatekeeping and steering persist throughout the hiring processes. An American Progress study on hiring discrimination found that “even after a decade of labor market gains, Black workers face more impediments to finding work than is the case for white workers.” Over 5% fewer prime-age Black workers are employed than prime-age white workers. Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received 1,889,631 complaints of hiring discrimination from 1997-2018. The problem is not going away.

Why was the literacy test barred in North Carolina?

United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969). 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.

Which amendment authorized professional developed ability tests?

110 Cong.Rec. 7247. [n11] (Emphasis added.) Despite [p435] these assurances, Senator Tower of Texas introduced an amendment authorizing "professionally developed ability tests." Proponents of Title VII opposed the amendment because, as written, it would permit an employer to give any test

Why were the requirements unlawful?

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. 1.

How many whites passed the Wonderlic test?

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.

What is the writ for P426?

We granted the writ in this case to resolve the question whether an employer is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, from requiring a high school education [p426] or passing of a standardized general intelligence test as a condition of employment in or transfer to jobs when (a) neither standard is shown to be significantly related to successful job performance, (b) both requirements operate to disqualify Negroes at a substantially higher rate than white applicants, and (c) the jobs in question formerly had been filled only by white employees as part of a longstanding practice of giving preference to whites. [n1]

What test did the coal company pass in 1965?

In September, 1965, the Company began to permit incumbent employees who lacked a high school education to qualify for transfer from Labor or Coal Handling to an "inside" job by passing two tests -- the Wonderlic Personnel Test , which purports to measure general intelligence, and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test.

What was the purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

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.

What is the Supreme Court ruling in Griggs v Duke Power Co?

424 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that aptitude tests used by employers that disparately impact ethnic minority groups must be reasonably related to the job. Otherwise, they run afoul of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Do prior results guarantee a similar outcome?

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising

Does the fable of milk provide equality of opportunity?

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. On the contrary, Congress has now required that the posture and condition of the job seeker be taken into account. It has — to resort again to the fable — provided that the vessel in which the milk is proffered be one all seekers can use.

Did Duke Energy have racial discrimination?

The District Court found that Duke Energy’s former policy of racial discrimination had ended and that Title VII, being prospective only, did not reach the prior inequities. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, rejecting the holding that residual discrimination arising from prior practices was insulated from the 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. It held that absent such discriminatory purpose, use of the requirements was permitted, and rejected the claim that, because a disproportionate number of African Americans was rendered ineligible for promotion, transfer, or employment, the requirements were unlawful unless shown to be job-related.

Does Title VII preclude testing?

The Court went on to hold that the while Title VII “does not preclude the use of testing or measuring procedures,” it does “proscribe giving them controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance.” Chief Justice Burger further noted:

What is the significance of Griggs v. Duke Power Co?

is an early and important case discussing the need to eradicate not only discriminatory treatment in the workplace, but also race-neutral polices that have a discriminatory impact.

Why did Duke Power sue?

Duke Power Co.: A group of African-American employees sued their employer, Duke Power Company, for a policy that mandated a high school diploma and satisfactory scores on two general aptitude tests in order to advance in the company.

What did the Supreme Court say about race neutral policies?

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. The Court held that even race-neutral policies that may show no discriminatory intent, still may be discriminatory in operation. It found that the high school and testing requirements indeed had a disproportionate negative impact on the African-American employees’ ability to advance. Therefore, those requirements violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Why did the lower courts find no violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?

They reasoned that because the high school and testing requirements applied to all races the Company had no discriminatory intent.

What was the purpose of Title VII?

Congress’ objective in enacting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was equality of employment opportunities and the removal of barriers that previously favored white employees. Accordingly, employer policies that appear race neutral but result in keeping a status quo that continues to discriminate against African-American employees violates the Act.

What was the Duke Power Company's policy before the Civil Rights Act?

Before the Civil Rights Act became effective in 1965, the Duke Power Company in North Carolina openly discriminated against African-American employees by allowing them to only work in the lowest paid division of the Company.

Which court reversed the discrimination act?

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part. It held that the Act could reach past discrimination, but that because the high school and aptitude test requirements applied to all races, there was no violation of the Act. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Why was the literacy test barred in North Carolina?

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.

Which bill protects the employer's right to insist that any prospective applicant, Negro or white, must meet the?

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.

What is Section 703 H?

For example, between July 2, 1965, and November 14, 1966, the percentage of white employees who were promoted but who were not high school graduates was nearly identical to the percentage of nongraduates in the entire white work force. Section 703 (h) applies only to tests.

How many whites passed the Wonderlic test?

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.

What is the judgment of the Court of Appeals?

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, as to that portion of the judgment appealed from, reversed.

What was the purpose of Title VII?

It was to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employees over other employees.

What is the purpose of the writ in the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

1. We granted the writ in this case to resolve the question whether an employer is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, from requiring a high school education or passing of a standardized general intelligence test as a condition of employment in or transfer to jobs when (a) neither standard is shown to be significantly related ...

Overview

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. It is generally considered the first case of its type.
The Supreme Court ruled that the company's employment requirements did not pertain to applic…

Facts

Judgment

Significance

See also

Notes

External links