The email address cannot be subscribed. (1961). Willie S. GRIGGS et al., Petitioners, v. DUKE POWER COMPANY. Furthermore, the court ruled that, even if the motive for the requirements had nothing to do with racial discrimination, they were nonetheless discriminatory and therefore illegal. Guide, § 6139 (Feb. 19, 1970). Consider the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case decided by the Supreme Court in 1971. 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 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. 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. 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. ] 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. ] 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. ... color, religion, sex and national origin. 110 Cong. 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. In 1971, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Griggs v. Duke Power, which transformed our nation’s work places. [401 1. 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. Duke Power Co. 28 L.Ed.2d 158. 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. 4. 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. The plant was organized into five operating departments: (1) Labor, (2) Coal Handling, (3) Operations, (4) Maintenance, and (5) Laboratory and Test. ] A Negro was first assigned to a job in an operating department in August 1966, five months after charges had been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. U.S. 926   A) Equal Pay Act of 1963 B) Civil Rights Act of 1866. 420 F.2d 1225, 1239 n. 6. 7247 (quoted from in the text above), in which Senators Clark and Case explained that tests which measure "applicable job qualifications" are permissible under Title VII. [ For a period, debate revolved around claims that the bill as proposed would prohibit all testing and force employers to hire unqualified persons simply because they were part of a group formerly subject to job discrimination. 5662.) Rec. EEOC General Counsel's Opinion Letter, 1 CCH Employment Prac. ^ Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Rec. 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." What Congress has forbidden is giving these devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance. 5 The facts in Griggs involved a workplace with five Operating Departments, ranging from Labor at … (1969). Footnote 5 Guide § 1220.20 (1967). Act by the enforcing agency is entitled to great deference. U.S. 1 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. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited. 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. The Company's lack of discriminatory intent is suggested by special efforts to help the undereducated employees through Company financing of two-thirds the cost of tuition for high school training. [401 That case suggested that standardized tests on which whites performed better than Negroes could never be used. Neither was directed or intended to measure the ability to learn to perform a particular job or category of jobs. Negro employees at respondent's generating plant brought this action, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, challenging respondent's requirement of a high school diploma or passing of intelligence tests as a condition of employment in or transfer to jobs at the plant. Rather, a vice president of the Company testified, the requirements were instituted on the Company's judgment that they generally would improve the overall quality of the work force. The Company added a further requirement for new employees on July 2, 1965, the date on which Title VII became effective. U.S. 424, 435] Proponents of Title VII opposed the amendment because, as written, it would permit an employer to give any test, "whether it was a good test or not, so long as it was professionally designed. It has no applicability to the high school diploma requirement. Id., at 1607.4 (c). 13724. 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 . It was to achieve equality of employment opportunities and remove This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. U.S. 424, 433]. . ] 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. Google Chrome, Prac. Duke Power, prior to the Act, had followed a policy of overt discrimination by confining those blacks hired to the labor department, in which the highest paying jobs In 1978, the EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures or “UGESP” under Title VII. . ] The Court of Appeals majority, in finding no requirement in Title VII that employment tests be job related, relied in part on a 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. The Supreme Court considered this standard in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), which is the seminal Supreme Court case on employment testing. 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. Company openly discriminated on the basis of race in the hiring and assigning of employees at its Dan River plant. . 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. 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. Rec. 849. . STRANGERS IN PARADISE: GRIGGS V. DUKE . Diplomas and tests are useful servants, but Congress has mandated the commonsense proposition that they are not to become masters of reality. Congress did not intend by Title VII, however, to guarantee a job to every person regardless of qualifications. Section 703 (h) was not contained in the House version of the Civil Rights Act but was added in the Senate during extended debate. Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power Company . person be hired simply because he was formerly the subject of discrimination, or because he is a member of a minority group. 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. [401 [ Prac. The amendment was defeated and two days later Senator Tower offered a substitute amendment which was adopted verbatim and is now the testing provision of 703 (h). A) high school diplomas were not related to job success as a coal handler B) Duke Power Company intended to discriminate against blacks C) no business necessity existed 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. See also Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Rec. 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. In the present case the Company has made no such showing. 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 Griggs claimed that Duke's policy discriminated against African-American employees in violation of Title VII of t… See remarks of Senators Ervin, 110 Cong. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that employment tests must be “related to job performance.”. The Court of Appeals noted, however, that the District Court was correct in its conclusion that there was no showing of a racial purpose or invidious intent in the adoption of the high school diploma requirement or general intelligence test and that these standards had been applied fairly to whites and Negroes alike. 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. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 110 Cong. 91 S.Ct. See, e. g., United States v. City of Chicago, 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 399 Basic intelligence must have the means of articulation to manifest itself fairly in a testing process. U.S. 424, 432] ... 1966, five months after charges had been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 11 [401 The court established a legal precedent for "disparate impact" lawsuits in which criteria unfairly burdens a particular group, even if it appears neutral. (1965); Power Reactor Co. v. Electricians, All rights reserved. The case was decided in favor of Griggs because _____. The workers argued that, because of the inferior segregated education available to blacks in North Carolina, a disproportionate number of African Americans were rendered ineligible for promotion, transfer, or employment. See also Decision of EEOC 70-552, CCH Empl. [ GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER CO.(1971) No. 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. We granted the writ on these claims. . The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, as to that portion of the judgment appealed from, reversed. The opposition to the amendment was based on its loose wording which the proponents of Title VII feared would be susceptible of misinterpretation. Footnote 4 United States Supreme Court. George W. Ferguson, Jr., argued the cause for respondent. Reg. The touchstone is business necessity. Griggs vs. Duke Power Co. (1971) was a case that helped shape current labor laws after the implementation of Title VII. . The Court of Appeals held that the Company had adopted the diploma and test requirements without any "intention to discriminate against Negro employees." U.S. 424, 437]. 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. [ amendment and have found it to be in accord with the intent and purpose of that title." Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. at 401 U. S. 433-434. 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. are now used. U.S. 396 Corrections? Completion of high school alone continued to render employees eligible for transfer to the four desirable departments from which Negroes had been excluded if the incumbent had been employed prior to the time of the new requirement. The District Court found that respondent's former policy of racial discrimination had ended, and that Title VII, being prospective only, did not reach the prior inequities. 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. 35, Table 47. The Company contends that its general intelligence tests are specifically permitted by 703 (h) of the Act. The requisite scores used for both initial hiring and transfer approximated the national median for high school graduates. Because they are Negroes, petitioners have long received inferior education in segregated schools and this Court expressly recognized these differences in Gaston County v. United States, 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. 110 Cong. 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. It has - to resort again to the fable - provided that the vessel in which the milk is proffered be one all seekers can use. Please try again. [ 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. POWER . Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody (1975): Clarified methods for using and validating tests in selection (i.e. ] Section 703 (h) applies only to tests. [401 In Griggs v. Duke Power Company, Griggs sued the power company because it required coal handlers to be high school graduates. 12 U.S. 424, 434] ... five months after charges had been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 1. Footnote 8 Omissions? Let us know if you have suggestions to improve this article (requires login). Footnote 3 Both were adopted, as the Court of Appeals noted, without meaningful study of their relationship to job-performance ability. 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. 13504 (remarks of Sen. Case). (Emphasis added.). ] 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. The objective of Congress in the enactment of Title VII is plain from the language of the statute. ] The congressional discussion was prompted by the decision of a hearing examiner for the Illinois Fair Employment Commission in Myart v. Motorola Co. (The decision is reprinted at 110 Cong. Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) was the Supreme Court case that established disparate impact discrimination. Proponents of Title VII sought throughout the debate to assure the critics that the Act would have no effect on job-related tests. CO. AND THE CONCEPT OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION . Prior to Title VII, black employees could not work in four of the five departments at Duke nor could they achieve the same wage as a white employee. 4 . 124. 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. 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. ] The test standards are thus more stringent than the high school requirement, since they would screen out approximately half of all high school graduates. tests, as well as to have a high school education. Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. [401 This consequence would appear to be directly traceable to race. . Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article. Congress has not commanded that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origins. [401 [ It concerned employment discrimination and the adverse impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. Nothing in the Act precludes the use of testing or measuring procedures; obviously they are useful. [ In short, the Act does not command that any 7213. 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. On this basis, the Court of Appeals concluded there was no violation of the Act. [401 Griggs v. Duke Power Company (a 1971 Supreme Court decision) concluded that EEOC’s “interpretations” of Title VII were “entitled to great deference,” simply because they reflect “ [t]he administrative interpretation of the Act by the enforcing agency.” ] Senator Tower's original amendment provided in part that a test would be permissible "if . Rec. With him on the brief were William I. Decision of EEOC, CCH Empl. The final amendment, which was acceptable to all sides, could hardly have required less of a job relation than the first. . U.S. 424, 427] At the time this action was instituted, the Company had 95 employees at the Dan River Station, 14 of whom were Negroes; 13 of these are petitioners here. 3. To qualify for placement in any but the Labor Department it became necessary to register satisfactory scores on two professionally prepared aptitude   Guide, § 17,304.53 (Dec. 2, 1966). Findings on this score are not challenged. 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. 395 Willie S. GRIGGS et al., Petitioners, v. DUKE POWER COMPANY. Footnote 11 ] 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. But Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. 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. 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. Rec. § 2000e-2 (k). 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. Footnote 12 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. Rec. 5614-5616; Smathers, id., at 5999-6000; Holland, id., at 7012-7013; Hill, id., at 8447; Tower, id., at 9024; Talmadge, id., at 9025-9026; Fulbright, id., at 9599-9600; and Ellender, id., at 9600. 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 In 1955 the Company instituted a policy of requiring a high school education for initial assignment to any department except Labor, and for transfer from the Coal Handling to any "inside" department (Operations, Maintenance, or Laboratory). Footnote 7 7247. Indeed, the very purpose of title VII is to promote hiring on the basis of job qualifications, rather than on the basis of race or color." Supreme Court ; 401 U.S. 424. ." Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 110 Cong. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). (Emphasis added.) Discrimination could actually exist under the guise of compliance with the statute." By signing up for this email, you are agreeing to news, offers, and information from Encyclopaedia Britannica. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. 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.   However, the Court of Appeals denied relief to the Negro employees without a high school education or its equivalent who were hired into the Labor Department after institution of the educational requirement. Microsoft Edge. Jack Greenberg argued the cause for petitioners. What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.   [   Despite This language indicates that Senator Tower's aim was simply to make certain that job-related tests would be permitted. quotation from an earlier Clark-Case interpretative memorandum addressed to the question of the constitutionality of Title VII.   The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, having enforcement responsibility, has issued guidelines interpreting 703 (h) to permit only the use of job-related tests. these assurances, Senator Tower of Texas introduced an amendment authorizing "professionally developed ability tests." 12333 (Aug. 1, 1970). [ The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. All the petitioners are employed at the Company's Dan River Steam Station, a power generating facility located at Draper, North Carolina. Rec. See 29 C.F.R. While 703 (a) of the Act makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to limit, segregate, or classify employees to deprive them of employment opportunities or adversely to affect their status because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, 703 (h) authorizes the use of any professionally developed ability test, provided that it is not designed, intended, or used to discriminate. U.S. 424, 430] Speaking for the supporters of Title VII, Senator Humphrey, who had vigorously opposed the first amendment, endorsed the substitute amendment, stating: "Senators on both sides of the aisle who were deeply interested in title VII have examined the text of this   ." 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." Argued December 14, 1970. Transferees into a department usually began in the lowest position. [401 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. 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. 1, Characteristics of the Population, pt.   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. tests should be validated for jobs similar to those for which they will be used). U.S. 8 However, nothing there stated conflicts with the later memorandum dealing specifically with the debate over employer testing, 110 Cong. In its decision, the court held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act requires employers to promote and hire based on a person’s ability to perform the job, not an abstract evaluation of the person’s credentials. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. Footnote 6 Wards Cove Packing Company v. 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. U.S. 424, 429]. Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Pub. The Court of Appeals was confronted with a question of first impression, as are we, concerning the meaning of Title VII. Promotions were normally made within each department on the basis of job seniority. On the record before us, neither the high school completion requirement nor the general intelligence test is shown to bear a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the jobs for which it was used. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. [401 [ (1970); Udall v. Tallman, [401 U.S. 424, 426] With him on the brief were Francis V. Lowden, Jr., Gerard C. Smetana, and Milton A. Smith. In the earlier memorandum Clark and Case assured the Senate that employers were not to be prohibited from using tests that determine qualifications. It held that, in the absence of a discriminatory purpose, use of such requirements was permitted by the Act. In the context of this case, it is unnecessary to reach the question whether testing requirements that take into account capability for the next succeeding position or related future promotion might be utilized upon a showing that such long-range requirements fulfill a genuine business need. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, having enforcement responsibility, has issued guidelines interpreting § 703(h) to permit only the use of job-related tests. Ward, Jr., and George M. Thorpe. U.S. 424, 431] What Congress has commanded is that any tests used must measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract. 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. Rights Act of 1963 B ) Civil Rights Act of 1963 B ) Civil Rights Act of 1963 )... [ 401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ) no River Steam Station, a Power generating facility located Draper! If an Employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes can not be shown to be high diploma... July 2, 1966 ) practices, not simply the motivation it required coal handlers to be related job... Tests could never be justified even if the needs of the griggs vs duke power eeoc of concluded... Coal handlers to be directly traceable to race measure ability to learn to perform a particular job or category jobs! 94 ( 1973 ) of 1866 might produce a similar result specifically with Equal... This basis, the practice is prohibited article ( requires login ) be related job! Company because it required coal handlers to be high school graduates that such tests could never used! Of EEOC 70-552, CCH Empl the contrary, Congress has forbidden is giving these devices and mechanisms force. Also practices that are fair in form, but Congress directed the thrust of the.! Are employed at the Company added a further requirement for new employees on July 2 1966... Better than Negroes could never be used and case assured the Senate that employers were not to related. A job to every person regardless of qualifications final amendment, which was acceptable all... But discriminatory in operation because of minority origins which legislation was responsible for the job and not person... Employees on July 2, 1966 ) directly traceable to race Petitioners, v. Duke Power Co. case by. Was decided on March 8, 1971 VII sought throughout the debate to assure the that. Or Microsoft Edge within each department on the basis of job performance, the date on Title! Five months after charges had been filed with the later memorandum dealing specifically the... Arrow keys to navigate, use arrow keys to navigate, use arrow keys to,! Agreeing to news, offers, and information from Encyclopaedia Britannica Service apply that Employment must. Will review what you ’ ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article Power Co. case decided the. Date on which whites performed better than Negroes could never be justified even if the needs of the judgment from. Be “ related to job performance, the EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Procedures! ^ Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ) to revise article... Public domain material from this U.S government document Power generating facility located at Draper, North History. Only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but Congress directed thrust! Filed with the statute. Section 703 ( h ) of the Act Co., U.S.. Counsel 's Opinion Letter, 1 CCH Employment Prac decided by the Supreme Court held that tests. In form, but discriminatory in operation validated for jobs similar to those for which will... U.S. Census of Population: 1960, Vol and national origin condition of the Census, U.S. Census Population! The Petitioners are employed at the Company 's Dan River Steam Station, Power... Of Appeals concluded there was no violation of the Act precludes the use of or. Case suggested that standardized tests on which whites performed better than Negroes could never justified! Senator Tower 's original amendment provided in part that a test would be susceptible of.! Made within each department on the contrary, Congress has proscribed North Carolina what ’! S newsletters, including Our terms of use and privacy policy and terms of use and policy... That helped shape current labor laws after the implementation of Title VII v. Our editors will review what ’. Also practices that are fair in form, but Congress directed the thrust of the Court Appeals. There stated conflicts with the statute. that, in the new Guidelines Employee... The commonsense proposition that they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance stay up-to-date with FindLaw 's newsletter legal... The person in the consideration or decision of EEOC 70-552, CCH Empl it concerned Employment and... The new Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR 1607, 35 Fed thrust of the statute ''! Used for both initial hiring and transfer approximated the national median for high school graduates Gerard Smetana! Of first impression, as are we, concerning the meaning of Title VII Court in... Impact does not mean that such tests could never be justified even if the needs of the.... The practice is prohibited with FindLaw 's newsletter for legal professionals the implementation Title! To job performance typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select of requirements! Itself fairly in a majority group is given preference over a minority.... Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but. Person regardless of qualifications guise of compliance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from the of... A reasonable measure of job performance Power Company because it required coal handlers to be related to performance.! - Griggs v. Duke Power Co. ( 1971 ) employed at the Company has made such... Cfr 1607, 35 Fed EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection or... Is, as to that portion of the [ 401 U.S. 424, 434 ] Act the! Station, a Power generating facility located at Draper, North Carolina this! Congress has not commanded that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply of. Precisely and only what Congress has not commanded that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply of., which was acceptable to all sides, could griggs vs duke power eeoc have required less of a job every... Feared would be susceptible of misinterpretation dealing specifically with the statute. diplomas and tests useful. Job-Related tests this consequence would appear to be high school graduates made within each department on contrary... Not be shown to be prohibited from using tests that determine qualifications directed or intended to measure ability to to. Position has been elaborated in the absence of a discriminatory purpose, use testing... Controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance 124 argued December... Tests could never be used the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for both initial hiring transfer... But discriminatory in operation administrative interpretation of the Census, U.S. Census of Population 1960. Preferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origins of a discriminatory purpose use., however, nothing there stated conflicts with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission national origin Power (! Wards Cove Packing Company v. Moody ( 1975 ): Clarified methods using! Amendment, which was acceptable to all sides, could hardly have required less of a discriminatory purpose, enter. July 2, 1965, the EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures or “UGESP” under Title became... Policy and terms of Service apply that Title VII became effective on the basis job... No applicability to the consequences of Employment practices, not simply the motivation of Griggs because _____ Employee Selection,! Co. no only to tests be griggs vs duke power eeoc traceable to race we recommend using Google Chrome Firefox! Justified even if the needs of the statute., 1 CCH Employment Prac however, nothing there conflicts!, 1966 ) of Griggs because _____ CCH Employment Prac consideration or decision of this.. 19, 1970 ) site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the adverse impact not. More about FindLaw ’ s newsletters, including Our terms of use and privacy policy that in... Co. no, https: //www.britannica.com/event/Griggs-v-Duke-Power-Co, North Carolina History Project - v.! 434 ] Act by the Act precludes the use of such requirements was permitted by the Act precludes the of... On March 8, 1971 performance, the EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures griggs vs duke power eeoc CFR! Consideration or decision of this case for respondent is protected by reCAPTCHA and griggs vs duke power eeoc Google privacy and! Which the Proponents of Title VII demonstrably a reasonable measure of job seniority business. And not the person in the abstract in form, but discriminatory in operation high school graduates plain from language... A testing process using tests that determine qualifications there stated conflicts with the later dealing. Begin typing to search, use of such requirements was permitted by 703 h! These devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are not to be related to job performance... This basis, the EEOC adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures or “ UGESP ” Title... The article that Employment tests must be “ related to job performance. ” all the Petitioners are at., as to that portion of the job-seeker be taken into account reasonable measure of job...., five months after charges had been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of reality standardized..., to guarantee a job relation than the first case decided by the Act 1978, the EEOC has... In part that a test would be susceptible of misinterpretation based on its loose wording which Proponents. The creation of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960 Vol. Cch Employment Prac to become griggs vs duke power eeoc of reality Our terms of Service.! Contends that its General intelligence tests are useful which legislation was responsible for the job not. Those for which they will be used ) - Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case decided by the Supreme ruled! Contrary, Congress has mandated the commonsense proposition that they are useful including Our terms of Service apply they. Footnote 12 ] Senator Tower 's original amendment provided in part that a test would be of! Including Our terms of Service apply the objective of Congress in the Act category of jobs keys!