Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
Do high school diploma and standardized testing requirements that are facially neutral but disproportionately exclude Black employees violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the employer cannot show those requirements are related to job performance and justified by business necessity?
Title VII prohibits employment practices that are neutral in form but discriminatory in operation if they cause a disparate impact on a protected class and are not shown by the employer to be related to job performance and consistent with business necessity. The statute forbids "artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment" that operate to freeze the status quo of prior discrimination. Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h), professionally developed ability tests are not a defense if they are used to discriminate or are not demonstrably job-related; such tests must measure the person for the job, not the person in the abstract. Once a plaintiff shows disparate impact, the employer bears the burden to demonstrate job-relatedness and business necessity for the challenged practice.
Yes. The Court unanimously held that Duke Power's high school diploma and aptitude test requirements violated Title VII because they had a significant disparate impact on Black employees and were not shown to be related to successful job performance or required by business necessity. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the employer and remanded.
Griggs established the disparate impact framework that dominates modern Title VII doctrine: plaintiffs may prevail without proving discriminatory intent if they show a significant adverse effect on a protected group and the employer cannot prove job-relatedness and business necessity. The case anchored the "job-related and consistent with business necessity" standard and clarified that § 703(h) does not shield unvalidated tests. Griggs also shaped later jurisprudence and legislation: Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody elaborated remedies and validation principles; Wards Cove altered burden allocations; and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 effectively restored and codified Griggs's disparate impact approach, including a clarified burden on employers and recognition of less discriminatory alternatives. For law students, Griggs is a paradigmatic example of purposive statutory interpretation, the role of EEOC guidance, and the centrality of empirical proof and validation in employment selection practices.