Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Constitutional Law

Title VIIemployment discriminationemployment testingTitle VIIracial discriminationdisparate impactbusiness necessityjob performance

Facts

Before Title VII took effect, Duke Power openly discriminated by assigning Negro employees only to its Labor Department, whose highest-paying jobs paid less than the lowest-paying jobs in the other departments staffed only by whites. The company required a high school education for assignment or transfer into the better departments, and on July 2, 1965, also required satisfactory scores on two aptitude tests for new employees seeking placement outside Labor; later, incumbent employees without diplomas could qualify for transfer only by passing those tests. Neither the diploma requirement nor the tests was shown to be significantly related to successful job performance, and the tests were not intended to measure ability to learn a particular job. Both requirements disqualified Negro applicants at a substantially higher rate than white applicants, while white employees hired before the requirements continued to perform satisfactorily and advance in the operating departments without meeting them.

Issue

Does Title VII prohibit an employer from requiring a high school diploma or passing standardized intelligence tests for employment or transfer when those requirements disproportionately exclude Negro employees and are not shown to be related to successful job performance, even without proof of discriminatory intent?

Rule

Under Title VII, employment practices that are neutral on their face and neutral in intent are unlawful if they operate to freeze the status quo of prior discriminatory practices and exclude Negro employees, unless the employer shows the practice has a manifest relationship to the employment in question. The touchstone is business necessity: if a practice that excludes Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, it is prohibited. Tests may be used only if they measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Mesa Transit Services, a private bus-maintenance company in Albuquerque, requires applicants for entry-level mechanic-helper positions to pass a general reasoning exam. The company adopted the exam to "raise overall workforce quality," and Latino applicants fail at a substantially higher rate than white applicants. The company has no evidence that the exam predicts success in the mechanic-helper job.

An unsuccessful applicant sues under Title VII. Which is the strongest argument that the exam violates the statute?

Explanation. The majority held that Title VII reaches practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation. Good intent does not save a practice that functions as a built-in headwind for minority groups. If a selection device disproportionately excludes minority applicants, the employer must show a manifest relationship to the employment in question; here, the company cannot show the general reasoning exam predicts job performance.