Facts of the Case
Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power Company . 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. Griggs claimed that Duke's policy discriminated against African-American employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. On appeal from a district court's dismissal of the claim, the Court of Appeals found no discriminatory practices. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Questions
Did Duke Power Company's intradepartmental transfer policy, requiring a high school education and the achievement of minimum scores on two separate aptitude tests, violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Conclusions
-
Yes. After noting that Title VII of the Act intended to achieve equality of employment opportunities, the Court held that Duke's standardized testing requirement prevented a disproportionate number of African-American employees from being hired by, and advancing to higher-paying departments within, the company. Neither the high school graduation requirement nor the two aptitude tests was directed or intended to measure an employee's ability to learn or perform a particular job or category of jobs within the company. The Court concluded that the subtle, illegal, purpose of these requirements was to safeguard Duke's long-standing policy of giving job preferences to its white employees.
Unleashed and Unbound: Living Textualism in Bostock v. Clayton County
Federalist Society Review, Volume 21
Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public...
Disparate Impact and Educational Resources
Disparate impact theory claims that a facially neutral practice that nevertheless has a disproportionate negative...
The Kudzu of Civil Rights Law: Disparate Impact Spreads Into Educational “Resource Comparability”
Engage Volume 16, Issue 2
Note from the Editor: This article is about a Dear Colleague letter from the Department...
Panel I: Disparate Impact and the Rule of Law: Does Disparate Impact Liability Make Everything Illegal?
Civil Rights in the United States
Disparate impact liability—or holding an actor liable for actions that have a disproportionate effect (disparate...
Panel I: Disparate Impact and the Rule of Law: Does Disparate Impact Liability Make Everything Illegal?
Civil Rights in the United States
Disparate impact liability—or holding an actor liable for actions that have a disproportionate effect (disparate...
Barwatch Bulletin -- February 14, 2009
February 14, 2009
Bioethics and the LawSaturday morning featured a roundtable discussion entitled "Hot Topics in Bioethics and...
The U.S. Department of Education and Two Court Decisions Probe the Limits of "Disparate Impact" Theory
Civil Rights Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 3, Issue 2, Summer 1999
The impact of so-called "high-stakes tests"—in both the employment and educational contexts—is an issue of...