Griggs V. Duke Power Was A Landmark Term Paper

Griggs v. Duke Power was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that employers could not institute requirements that created de facto discrimination in the workplace that were not necessary for employment. The case involved the Duke Power hydroelectric plant in North Carolina. Before the Civil Rights Act, the company practiced open discrimination against African-Americans, only hiring them as part of its Labor department and in 1955 created a requirement that all employees have a high school diploma for initial hiring except in the Labor department. After 1965 (when Title IIV of the Act became effective), Duke created a requirement that all transfers to other departments have a high school diploma, presumably to prevent African-Americans at the company from moving from Labor to more desirable, highly-paid positions in areas such as Maintenance, Operations, and Laboratory. Duke later modified its policy by allowing employees to transfer to other departments, only if they attained satisfactory scores on two intelligence tests designed to measure mechanical aptitude. African-Americans argued that a high school diploma was not necessary to perform the jobs it was required for at the company and African-Americans tended to score lower than whites upon such aptitude tests, thus allowing the company to maintain discrimination in the workplace. Originally,...

...

However, Chief Justice Burger argued that "Congress has placed on employers the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question" (19: 4). In other words, employers cannot arbitrarily set requirements which have little to do with the actual job given that this can create a more unjust society and bar certain groups from advancement for no meaningful or justifiable reason.
Response to student

While I agree that Title VII expanded opportunities for African-Americans to be employed in a wider range of occupations than they were previously when discrimination was practiced openly by employers, I would disagree that the Civil Rights Act simply barred discrimination in all instances. Duke Power was not technically practicing discrimination: it was merely setting conditions for employment. Unfortunately, because of historic injustices in America, these requirements made it more difficult for African-Americans to secure better-paid employment at the company. African-Americans are less likely to graduate high school and the tests used to screen transfers and employment were designed largely by whites, which could partially explain the lower scores on…

Cite this Document:

"Griggs V Duke Power Was A Landmark" (2013, December 18) Retrieved April 26, 2024, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/griggs-v-duke-power-was-a-landmark-180063

"Griggs V Duke Power Was A Landmark" 18 December 2013. Web.26 April. 2024. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/griggs-v-duke-power-was-a-landmark-180063>

"Griggs V Duke Power Was A Landmark", 18 December 2013, Accessed.26 April. 2024,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/griggs-v-duke-power-was-a-landmark-180063

Related Documents

Johnson v Transportation Agency (1986) The two above cases both resulted in a broadening of the scopes and protections of the Civil Rights Act via jurisprudence. In Johnson v Transportation Agency (1986), a very different result was reached that shows the changing nature and understanding of discrimination and how it work in society. The difference in this case is also directly and explicitly related to the differences in the original plaintiffs

fall into the "reasonable accommodation" category of less than $500 would be things like modifying work schedules, reassigning workers to different tasks or departments, restructuring jobs, making facilities accessible, and providing interpreters or readers. It is very important that Muslims have protection because employers are not allowed to discriminate against any religion. Whether the employer agrees with or likes the religion does not matter. That employer must not discriminate against

Job Analysis; Discuss Legal Implications Job Analysis (including Citing Court Case Ruled Selection Practices) Job analysis: A legal overview A job analysis lists the competencies required to perform a job; identifies "the job-relatedness of the tasks and competencies needed to successfully perform the job"; and defends the assessment and selection criteria of the job from a legal standpoint (Job analysis, 2013, opm.gov). When constructing a job analysis, "a good place to

Improving on-the-job training and streamlining standardized procedures might be a more effective way to meet company objectives. Q3. What legal ramifications, if any, should Sam have considered? Furthermore, Sam's company could be facing serious legal problems, as a result of needlessly increasing educational requirements for readers. In the "landmark Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case of 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Duke's requirement of high school diplomas or IQ

Equal Employment Opportunity The modern history of employment equity begins with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which extended employment equity rights to Americans regardless of gender, religion, national origin, race or color (National Archives, 2014). The CRA was, in essence, fulfilling the promise of the 14th Amendment, which introduced the idea of equal protection under the law. Employment in the United States is typically governed under the doctrine of employment