Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
420 F.2d 1225 (1970)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer's use of a professionally developed general ability test or a high school diploma requirement is permissible if it serves a genuine business purpose and is not intended to discriminate, even if the requirement is not directly related to job performance.

Facts:

Prior to 1965, Duke Power Company's Dan River Steam Station openly restricted its Black employees to the low-paying Labor department.
In 1955, nine years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Duke Power instituted a policy requiring a high school education for employment in any department except Labor and for transfer out of the Labor department.
White employees hired before 1955 without a high school education were already in higher-paying departments and were not subject to this requirement for internal promotion.
In 1965, Duke Power amended its policy to allow employees without a high school education to qualify for transfer or promotion by passing two standardized tests: the Wonderlic general intelligence test and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test.
A group of Black employees, including Willie Griggs, who had been hired into the Labor department before and after 1955, lacked high school diplomas and could not pass the tests, effectively locking them into the lowest-paying department.

Procedural Posture:

Willie S. Griggs and other Black employees filed a class action lawsuit against Duke Power Company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The plaintiffs alleged that the company's educational and testing requirements for promotion violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The district court found that Duke Power had engaged in past racial discrimination but held that Title VII did not prohibit the continuation of the present effects of that past discrimination.
The district court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, finding the requirements permissible.
The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employer violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by requiring a high school diploma or passing scores on general intelligence tests as a condition for transfer or promotion, where these requirements disqualify a disproportionate number of Black employees but were adopted for a genuine business purpose without discriminatory intent?

Opinions:

Majority - Boreman, J.

No, an employer does not violate Title VII by implementing such requirements if they serve a genuine business purpose and lack discriminatory intent. The court distinguished between two groups of employees. For Black employees hired before the high school diploma requirement was instituted in 1955, the policy is invalid because it perpetuates the effects of past, overt discrimination, locking them into the department they were segregated into while their white counterparts were not subject to the same barrier. However, for employees hired after the policy was adopted, the requirements are valid. The court found a genuine business purpose for the policy—to upgrade the quality of the workforce for more complex jobs and future supervisory roles. Citing the legislative history of § 703(h) of Title VII (specifically the Tower Amendment), the court explicitly rejected the EEOC's position and held that a professionally developed ability test does not need to be job-related to be permissible, so long as it is not designed, intended, or used to discriminate.

Dissenting in part - Sobeloff, J.

Yes, such a policy violates Title VII because practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in effect are unlawful unless justified by business necessity. The dissent argues that the majority's focus on 'business purpose' and 'intent' is incorrect; the proper inquiry is whether the requirements are demonstrably job-related and constitute a 'business necessity.' Deference should be given to the EEOC's interpretation that tests must be validated for the specific jobs in question. Allowing employers to use non-job-related tests that have a disparate impact on minorities creates a loophole for evading the statute's mandate to eliminate barriers to equal employment opportunity. The policy also unlawfully 'freezes' the status quo of a workforce that was racially stratified by past discrimination, which Title VII was enacted to remedy.

Analysis:

This decision established a 'business purpose' test for employment criteria under Title VII in the Fourth Circuit, holding that an employer's good faith and a rational, non-discriminatory reason for a policy could shield it from liability, even if it had a disparate racial impact. By explicitly rejecting the EEOC's 'job-relatedness' standard, the court created a significant circuit split with the Fifth Circuit, which had adopted the EEOC's view. This conflict over whether Title VII targets discriminatory effects or only discriminatory intent set the stage for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue and define the scope of the disparate impact theory of discrimination.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1970)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"