Key Takeaways

1. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) established the "disparate impact" theory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, holding that employment practices that are neutral on their face but discriminatory in effect are unlawful, regardless of intent.
2. Employers must demonstrate that any employment requirements (such as tests or diplomas) are directly related to job performance and are a business necessity, otherwise they may be found discriminatory.
3. The decision has had a lasting impact on employment law, influencing subsequent case law, legislation, and the enforcement of anti-discrimination protections in the workplace.

Introduction

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case that fundamentally reshaped the legal landscape of employment discrimination. Decided unanimously in 1971, the Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment practices that disproportionately affect members of protected groups—such as racial minorities—are prohibited unless the employer can show those practices are directly related to job performance and constitute a business necessity. This principle, known as the "disparate impact" theory, shifted the focus of employment discrimination law from the intent behind employer actions to their actual effects on employees.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the Griggs case, its background, the legal issues at stake, the Supreme Court's reasoning, and the enduring significance of the decision. We also explore how Griggs has influenced subsequent legal developments and what it means for employers, employees, and attorneys today.

For further reading and official documentation, see the Supreme Court’s decision on Justia, the Oyez case summary, and the Wikipedia entry.

Background of Griggs v. Duke Power

The Setting: Duke Power Company and Employment Practices

The case originated at the Duke Power Company's Steam Station in Draper, North Carolina. Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Duke Power openly discriminated against African American employees, restricting them to the lowest-paying jobs in the Labor Department. These positions offered little opportunity for advancement, while higher-paying jobs in other departments were reserved for white workers.

After Title VII of the Civil Rights Act became law in 1964, Duke Power altered its policies. Instead of explicit racial exclusions, the company implemented facially neutral requirements: to transfer out of the Labor Department, employees had to possess a high school diploma or pass two standardized intelligence tests. Although these requirements appeared neutral, their real effect was to continue excluding African American workers from better jobs.

The Plaintiffs: Willie Griggs and Co-Workers

Willie Griggs and a group of African American employees challenged these policies, arguing that the new requirements had a disproportionate impact on black workers. The plaintiffs argued that most African American employees at Duke Power did not have high school diplomas, largely due to the legacy of segregated and unequal schooling in the South. Furthermore, the intelligence tests used by the company were not demonstrably related to job performance.

The Legal Challenge

Griggs and his co-workers filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. They alleged that Duke Power’s diploma and testing requirements violated Title VII’s prohibition against employment discrimination on the basis of race. The District Court, however, ruled in favor of Duke Power, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent.

The case was then appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court’s decision. The plaintiffs sought review by the Supreme Court, arguing that the law should focus not just on intent, but on the actual effects of employment practices.

Legal Issues and Arguments

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII is the cornerstone of federal employment discrimination law. It prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals “because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The central issue in Griggs was the interpretation of Title VII: does it prohibit only intentional discrimination, or does it also ban practices that are neutral on their face but discriminatory in operation?

The Plaintiffs' Argument

The plaintiffs argued that Duke Power’s requirements, while race-neutral in form, had the effect of excluding African Americans from better jobs at the company. They pointed out that:

• The high school diploma and test requirements were not related to job performance.
• These requirements disproportionately excluded black employees, who had less access to quality education due to historical segregation.
• Title VII should be interpreted to prohibit not just overt discrimination, but also practices with a disparate impact on protected groups.

The Employer's Defense

Duke Power contended that:

• Their new requirements were facially neutral and applied equally to all employees.
• There was no intent to discriminate.
• The company had a right to set standards for employment, including education and testing requirements.

The company argued that unless there was proof of intentional discrimination, their practices should not be deemed unlawful under Title VII.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Unanimous Opinion

On March 8, 1971, the Supreme Court delivered a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. The Court reversed the lower courts, holding that Title VII prohibits not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation.

Key Holdings

The Court’s opinion established several groundbreaking principles:

1. Disparate Impact Standard: Title VII prohibits employment practices that have a discriminatory effect, even if there is no discriminatory intent.
2. Job-Relatedness and Business Necessity: Employers must show that any requirement or test that disproportionately impacts a protected group is directly related to job performance and is a business necessity.
3. Burden of Proof: Once a plaintiff shows that a practice has a disparate impact, the burden shifts to the employer to justify the practice.

The Court’s Reasoning

The Court emphasized that Congress intended Title VII to remove artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race. The Court stated:

"The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited."

The Court found that neither the high school diploma requirement nor the intelligence tests were shown to be necessary for successful job performance at Duke Power. As such, they violated Title VII.

The Disregard of Intent

Perhaps most importantly, the Court held that the employer’s lack of discriminatory intent was irrelevant. What mattered was the effect of the practice:

"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 Disparate Impact Theory

What is Disparate Impact?

Disparate impact refers to employment practices that are neutral on their face but have a disproportionate adverse effect on members of a protected group. This is different from disparate treatment, which involves intentional discrimination.

Under Griggs, plaintiffs do not need to prove that an employer intended to discriminate. Instead, they must show that a specific employment practice causes a significant adverse impact on a protected group. The employer must then show that the practice is a business necessity.

The Business Necessity Defense

An employer can defend a practice with disparate impact by demonstrating:

• The practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
• There is no less discriminatory alternative that would also serve the employer’s legitimate interests.

If the employer cannot make this showing, the practice is unlawful under Title VII.

Impact on Employment Testing and Education Requirements

Griggs placed the burden on employers to validate employment tests and requirements. Since 1971, employers have been required to ensure that any selection criteria are validated—that is, proven to predict or relate to job performance.

Subsequent Developments and Legal Legacy

Codification in the Civil Rights Act of 1991

In response to subsequent Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the disparate impact theory, Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1991. This law explicitly codified the disparate impact standard set forth in Griggs, making it clear that:

• Practices with a disparate impact are unlawful unless justified by business necessity.
• Plaintiffs can challenge specific employment practices that cause statistical disparities.

Influence on Subsequent Case Law

The Griggs decision has been cited in hundreds of cases and remains a cornerstone of employment discrimination jurisprudence. Key subsequent cases include:

• Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976): The Court held that disparate impact analysis does not apply to constitutional claims under the Equal Protection Clause, but reaffirmed its application under Title VII.
• Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989): The Court limited the disparate impact theory, leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which restored and strengthened Griggs’ principles.

Impact on Employers and Employees

The Griggs decision has had a profound effect on workplace practices:

• Employers must carefully evaluate their hiring, promotion, and selection criteria to ensure they are job-related and do not disproportionately exclude protected groups.
• Employees have greater ability to challenge practices that, while neutral on their face, have the effect of perpetuating historical discrimination.

Enforcement by the EEOC

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Title VII and has issued guidelines reflecting the Griggs standard. The EEOC investigates claims of disparate impact and provides guidance to employers on validating selection procedures.

For more information, see the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.

Critiques and Ongoing Debates

Support for Griggs

Supporters of the Griggs decision argue that it is essential for combating systemic discrimination. By focusing on the effects of employment practices, rather than intent, Griggs addresses the subtle and often unconscious ways in which discrimination persists.

Criticisms

Critics contend that the disparate impact theory can impose undue burdens on employers and may lead to the elimination of legitimate, merit-based selection criteria. Some also argue that the theory may encourage employers to adopt quotas or to avoid using any tests that might have statistical disparities, regardless of their validity.

The Debate Continues

The debate over disparate impact continues in courts, legislatures, and academia. However, Griggs remains a foundational precedent, and its principles are embedded in federal law.

Practical Guidance for Attorneys and Employers

For Attorneys

Attorneys representing employees should:

• Analyze whether a challenged employment practice has a disparate impact on a protected group.
• Gather statistical evidence to demonstrate the impact.
• Investigate whether the practice is job-related and a business necessity.

Attorneys representing employers should:

• Review and validate all employment tests, educational requirements, and other selection criteria.
• Document the business necessity of each practice.
• Consider alternative practices that may have less discriminatory impact.

For Employers

Best practices for compliance include:

• Conducting regular audits of employment practices for potential disparate impact.
• Validating selection procedures using accepted industrial and organizational psychology methods.
• Providing training to HR professionals on equal employment opportunity laws.

For Employees

Employees who believe they have been adversely affected by a neutral employment practice should:

• Document the practice and its effects.
• Consult with an attorney or contact the EEOC.
• Be prepared to provide evidence of statistical disparities.

The Enduring Significance of Griggs

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. stands as a watershed moment in American employment law. By shifting the focus from discriminatory intent to discriminatory effect, the Supreme Court recognized the reality that discrimination can be perpetuated through seemingly neutral policies. The case remains highly relevant today, as employers and employees alike navigate the complexities of modern workplace discrimination.

For attorneys, legal scholars, and HR professionals, understanding Griggs is essential for effective legal research and compliance. To stay current and gain deeper insights, consider utilizing Counsel Stack's legal research tools.

Additional Resources

• Supreme Court’s Decision - Justia
• Oyez Case Summary
• Wikipedia: Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
• EEOC Uniform Guidelines

Disclaimer

This guide is intended as an overview of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and the disparate impact theory under Title VII. It does not constitute legal advice. The law in this area is complex and subject to change. For specific legal questions or advice, consult a qualified attorney or conduct thorough research on Counsel Stack.