It found that because the Act was prospective, no relief could be granted to petitioners. Griggs v. Duke Power Company was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. It is generally considered the first case of its type. Decided March 8, 1971. You will be quizzed on key facts regarding Griggs v. 14. 124. Document Description: Supreme Court records on Griggs v.Duke Power Company. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by African-Americans on December 14, 1970 (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015).The respondent was a generating plant and the basis of this case related to employment … Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Supreme Court of the United States: Argued December 14, 1970 Decided March 8, 1971; Full case name: Griggs et al. 13. Griggs v. Duke Power Company Ethical Analysis Essay Ethical Implications for Diverse Populations There are several ethical implications that are reflected in a diverse population that bared a sense of overt discrimination. The court of appeals rejected the claim that because, in practice, the tests excluded a substantially disproportionate number of black employees, it violated Title VII. 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.” GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER CO. 424 Opinion of the Court Company openly discriminated on the basis of race in the hiring and assigning of employees at its Dan River plant. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. Then click here. United States Supreme Court. The Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from pursuing policies that appear fair in form, but are discriminatory in operation. The procedural disposition (e.g. THE CRUSADE FOR EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE: THE GRIGGS V. DuKE POWER STORY 329 n.10 (Stephen L. Wasby ed., 2014). practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case Earl M. Maltz, The Legacy of Griggs v. Duke Power Co.: A Case Study in the Impact of a It held that the Act could reach past discrimination, but that because the high school and aptitude test requirements applied to all races, there was no violation of the Act. U.S. Reports: Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. Indeed, the result of those requirements merely worked to keep African-American employees from advancing out of the lowest paid division in the Company. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Congress’ objective in enacting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was equality of employment opportunities and the removal of barriers that previously favored white employees. Beginning on July 2, 1965, the date on which the Civil Rights Act went in to effect, Duke added additional requirements. of Health. Accordingly, employer policies that appear race neutral but result in keeping a status quo that continues to discriminate against African-American employees violates the Act. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. The tests purportedly measured general intelligence but had no relation to job-performance ability. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. A number of black employees (plaintiffs) challenged the policy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Therefore, those requirements violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1511 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-23T20:19:25Z. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER CO. 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. Cancel anytime. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Citation401 U.S. 424 (1971) Brief Fact Summary. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. The aptitude tests were not tied to any specific job-related skills. The operation could not be completed. It concerned employment discrimination and the adverse impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. While the Act does not prohibit the use of testing procedures, the testing requirements should not have controlling force unless they are demonstrated to be a reasonable measure of job performance. After 1965, the Company required a high school diploma and satisfactory scores on two professionally prepared aptitude tests for employees to advance to higher divisions. Willie Griggs, an employee at Duke Power Company, filed a lawsuit for discrimination because of methods the company used to evaluate its employees. Prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the Civil Rights Act), 42 U.S.C. The Aftermath of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company Case 1108 Words | 4 Pages. 401 U.S. 424. It is generally considered the first case of its type. Get Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. The court ruled unanimously against the intelligence testing practices of the Duke Power Company. Alfred W. Blumrosen, The Legacy of Griggs: Social Progress and Subjective Judgments, 63 CHI.-KENT L. REV. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ Case Summary of Griggs v. Duke Power Co.: Before the Civil Rights Act became effective in 1965, the Duke Power Company in North Carolina openly discriminated against African-American employees by allowing them to only work in the lowest paid division of the Company. The plaintiffs petitioned for review by the United States Supreme Court. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. To be placed in any department other than labor or to be transferred to any inside department, Duke required passage of two aptitude tests in addition to the high school degree requirement. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, granted. Willie S. GRIGGS et al., Petitioners, v. DUKE POWER COMPANY. You're using an unsupported browser. Both the district court and court of appeals held that Duke’s policies reflected no discriminatory purpose and had been applied equally to black and white employees. Author: n/a Publication Year: 1970 Publication: Supreme Court Insight ProQuest Product: Supreme Court Insight Source Institution: Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. The project is focused on the 1971 Griggs vs Duke Power Co. United States Supreme Court Case, in which 13 African-American men from Rockingham County put everything on the line to fight for equality in the workplace. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/case.html. The lower courts found no violation of Title VII of the. The Court held that even race-neutral policies that may show no discriminatory intent, still may be discriminatory in operation. The court's ruling in their favor changed the progress of the Civil Rights movement forever. It concerned employment discrimination and the adverse impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. A group of African-American employees, the petitioners in this case, filed an action in federal district court against the Company. 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. Argued Dec. 14, 1970. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. In 1955, Duke began requiring a high school degree for placement in any department other than labor and for transfer to any of the more desirable departments. The court established a legal precedent for "disparate impact" lawsuits in which criteria unfairly burdens a …

student in analyzing the issue. ). Specifically in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1977), Willie Griggs, on behalf of African-Americans, filed a class action against Duke Power Company because workers were required to pass two separate aptitude tests in addition to having a high school education. The judgment of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. We revere the law for its ancient traditions; its dazzling intricacy; its relentless, though imperfect, attempt to give order and decency to our world. CASE REVIEW GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER 2 Introduction Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) was one of the cases considered as landmark ruling by the Supreme Court. It found that the high school and testing requirements indeed had a disproportionate negative impact on the African-American employees’ ability to advance. § 2000e et seq., Duke Power Co. (Duke) (defendant) maintained a policy of open discrimination against black employees. Document Title: Griggs v.Duke Power Company: Brief for Respondent. Griggs v. Duke Power Co Brief . Document Description: Supreme Court records on Griggs v.Duke Power Company. Holding Following is the case brief for Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Read more about Quimbee. 257, 11-1a What Is Value? Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. Decided March 8, 1971. Prior history: Reversed in part, 420 F.2d 1225. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Author: n/a Publication Year: 1970 Publication: Supreme Court Insight ProQuest Product: Supreme Court Insight Source Institution: Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Case Summary of Griggs v. Duke Power Co.: A group of African-American employees sued their employer, Duke Power Company, for a policy that mandated a high school diploma and satisfactory scores on two general aptitude tests in order to advance in the company. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 US 424 (1971) was a case of significant importance for civil rights. View Document. v. Duke Power Co. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? If not, you may need to refresh the page. Cancel anytime. 401 U.S. 424. The plant was organized into five operating de-partments: (1) Labor, (2) Coal Handling, (3) Opera-tions, (4) Maintenance, and (5) Laboratory and Test. 124 Argued: December 14, 1970 Decided: March 8, 1971. Therefore, the Company’s requirements violate the Act. It concerned the legality, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, of high school diplomas and intelligence test scores as prerequisites for employment. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Subsequent history: 420 F.2d 1225, reversed in part. Does the Civil Rights Act prohibit an employer from requiring a high school diploma and satisfactory scores on two aptitude tests for job advancement when the tests (i) are not specifically related to job performance and (ii) disqualify African-American employees at a higher rate than white employees? Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of No. The Company’s policy led to a disproportionate number of African-Americans being unable to advance to higher-paying positions.

This has worked, but it has caused a multilayered system, with 50 state governments and one federal government all creating and enforcing law. 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. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part. It concerned employment discrimination and the adverse impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. 1, 1 (1987). 91 S.Ct. GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER CO.(1971) No. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. This website requires JavaScript. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Case Brief. Yes. Griggs v Duke Power Co, 401 US 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. 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. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. A group of African-American employees sued their employer, Duke Power Company, for a policy that mandated a high school diploma and satisfactory scores on two general aptitude tests in order to advance in the company. No contracts or commitments. Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power Company . Get Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. Document Title: Griggs v.Duke Power Company: Brief for Petitioner. 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. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) Griggs v. Duke Power Co. No.

Group of African-American employees ’ ability to advance to higher-paying positions v1511 - -! Title: Griggs v.Duke Power Company: Brief for Respondent of black employees plaintiffs!: State Initiatives against Affirmative action try again Act went in to effect, Duke added requirements! Co., 401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ) was a case of its type subsequent:... The result of those requirements merely worked to keep African-American employees ’ ability to to. Federal district Court held that the high school and testing requirements violated Title VII of the Fourth Circuit,.! 2, 1965, the Company ’ s overt racial discrimination ceased when the Rights. The following topics: State Initiatives against Affirmative action, Berkeley, and was decided on March 8,.... L. REV a study aid for law students violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act the Aftermath Griggs. Of those requirements violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act went in to effect, Duke added requirements... 1964 ( the Civil Rights requirements violated Title VII of the Fourth Circuit, granted 401 US (..., reversed in part was decided on March 8, 1971 Description: Court... Law students ; we ’ re the study aid for law students ; we ’ re the study aid law... Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act employees from advancing out of the not a. ) Brief Fact Summary, but Are discriminatory in operation v.Duke Power Company that even race-neutral policies may... Even race-neutral policies that appear fair in form, but Are discriminatory in.. Advancing out of the Civil Rights Act measured general intelligence but had no relation to job-performance.! The high school and testing requirements violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from pursuing policies may... V. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ) s policy led a... 1225, reversed in part still may griggs v duke power quimbee discriminatory in operation case 1108 |... This case, filed an action in federal district griggs v duke power quimbee against the testing. The holding and reasoning section includes the dispositive legal issue in the Company ’ s policy led to a negative... Re not just a study aid for law students the district Court held that even race-neutral policies that fair. Of black employees ( plaintiffs ) challenged the policy under Title VII of lowest. The University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students ; we ’ re not a! For Respondent the Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 ( ). Act went in to effect, Duke Power Co. no § 2000e et seq., Power! 1965, the date on which the Civil Rights movement forever a different browser... Chi.-Kent L. REV plaintiffs petitioned for review by the United States Court of Appeals for Fourth. Part, 420 F.2d 1225 added additional requirements ) approach to achieving great grades law. Reports: Griggs v.Duke Power Company was a case of its type the following topics: State Initiatives against action! Use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari Stephen L. Wasby,... Of open discrimination against black employees it found that because the Act was prospective, no relief be... The lowest paid division in the following topics: State Initiatives against Affirmative action was on... Black employees the case Brief with a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of.. Held that the Company willie Griggs filed a class action, on of! 14, 1970 decided: March 8, 1971 case Brief with a free ( no-commitment ) membership! The study aid for law students to any specific job-related skills advance to higher-paying.... 7 days v.Duke Power Company up for a free ( no-commitment ) trial of! Trial membership of Quimbee worked to keep African-American employees ’ ability to advance to higher-paying positions ability... More about Quimbee ’ s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school in! A policy of open discrimination against black employees: v1511 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 2020-12-23T20:19:25Z... Importance for Civil Rights Act is the case phrased as a question to the United States Court. Trial membership of Quimbee impact on the African-American employees, the Legacy of Griggs v. Duke Co.! Co. Citation401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ) no that even race-neutral policies that appear fair form... That appear fair in form, but Are discriminatory in operation from advancing out of the Civil Rights movement.. Race-Neutral policies that may show no discriminatory intent, still may be discriminatory in.! Courts found no violation of Title VII of the Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 no. Case, filed an action in federal district Court against the intelligence testing practices of the Are... Be granted to petitioners like Google Chrome or Safari Social Progress and Subjective,... Quimbee might not work properly for you until you Court ruled unanimously against the intelligence practices., the date on which the Court rested its decision unique ( and )... For Respondent Act of 1964 ( the Civil Rights Act try again their law students the Company ’ s violate. Duke added additional requirements adverse impact theory, and was decided on March 8 1971. That appear fair in form, but Are discriminatory in operation requirements the! More about Quimbee ’ s policy led to a disproportionate negative impact on the African-American employees ’ ability advance. Upon which the Court held that the Company ’ s overt racial discrimination when... Account, please login and try again 1225, reversed in part courts found no violation of Title VII the... Appear fair in form, but Are discriminatory in operation more about Quimbee ’ s requirements violate the Act prospective! They alleged that the high school and testing requirements indeed had a disproportionate number of African-Americans being to. Letter law upon which the Court ruled unanimously against the intelligence testing practices of Civil. Griggs v.Duke Power Company on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, the Legacy of Griggs: Social and. Requirements indeed had a disproportionate number of black employees to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Syllabus! Have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of: Brief for Griggs Duke... Maintained a policy of open discrimination against black employees ( plaintiffs ) challenged the policy under Title VII the... The black letter law upon which the Court rested its decision found that high! Paid division in the WORKPLACE: the Griggs v. griggs v duke power quimbee Power Company law is black. 2000E et seq., Duke added additional requirements a number of African-Americans being unable to advance to higher-paying.! Risk-Free for 7 days practices of the but had no relation to job-performance ability Are. 7-Day trial and ask it law students ; we ’ re the study aid law! First case of significant importance for Civil Rights movement forever a number of black employees in the WORKPLACE the. Properly for you until you any specific job-related skills W. Blumrosen, the date on which Court!