1. Does this case make sense to you? Why? Why not?

2. The Court said the employer’s intent does not matter here. Should it? Explain.

3. What would be your biggest concern as an employer who read this decision?

Issue: Whether an employer can be held liable for race discrimination if their policy of requiring a high school diploma, even if this is not necessary to perform well on the job, has an adverse impact on black employees.

Facts: Until the day Title VII became effective, it was the policy of Duke Power Co. that blacks be employed in only one of its five departments: the Labor Department. The highest-paid black employee in the Labor Department made less than the lowest-paid white employee in any other department. Blacks could not transfer out of the Labor Department into any other department. The day Title VII became effective, Duke instituted a policy requiring new hires to have a high school diploma and passing scores on two general intelligence tests in order to be placed in any department other than Labor and a high school diploma to transfer to other departments from Labor. Two months later, Duke required that transferees from the Labor or Coal Handling Departments who had no high school diploma pass two general intelligence tests. White employees already in other departments were grandfathered in under the new policy and the high school diploma and intelligence test requirements did not apply to them. Black employees brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, challenging the employer’s requirement of a high school diploma and the passing of intelligence tests as a condition of employment in or transfer to jobs at the power plant. They alleged the requirements are not job related and have the effect of disqualifying blacks from employment or transfer at a higher rate than whites.

Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the act dictated that job requirements which have a disproportionate impact on groups protected by Title VII be shown to be job related. Griggs claimed that Duke’s policy discriminated against blacks in violation of the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The District Court found that respondent's former policy of racial discrimination had ended, and that Title VII, being prospective only, did not reach the prior inequities. The Court of Appeals reversed in part. It rejected the holding that residual discrimination arising from prior practices was insulated from remedial action But, it agreed with the lower court that there was no showing of discriminatory purpose in the adoption of the educational requirements. The Court held that, when such discriminatory purpose was absent, the use of the requirements was allowed. It rejected the claim because a disproportionate number of Negroes were rendered ineligible for promotion, transfer, or employment, the requirements were unlawful unless shown to be job-related.