Legal Definitions - Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "disparate impact" theory under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It held that employment practices, even if neutral on their face, are unlawful if they have a discriminatory effect on a protected group and are not job-related, regardless of the employer's intent to discriminate.

The legal term Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) refers to a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that significantly shaped employment law in the United States.

This case established that an employment practice can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if it has a discriminatory effect on a protected group, even if the employer did not intend to discriminate. This concept is known as "disparate impact." Essentially, if a seemingly neutral employment rule or requirement disproportionately excludes individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and that rule is not genuinely necessary for the job, it can be considered unlawful discrimination.

The Court emphasized that the goal of Title VII is to achieve equality of employment opportunities by removing "artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers" that historically favored certain groups. To justify a practice that causes disparate impact, an employer must prove that the requirement is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Here are some examples illustrating the principle established in Griggs v. Duke Power Co.:

• Example 1: Physical Strength Requirement for an Office Job

  A technology company requires all applicants for a software development position to pass a physical fitness test that includes lifting a 50-pound weight. While the company states this is to ensure employees are generally healthy, the software development role primarily involves coding, problem-solving, and sitting at a computer. This lifting requirement, though seemingly neutral, could disproportionately exclude women or older applicants who, on average, may have less upper body strength. If the company cannot demonstrate that lifting 50 pounds is a genuine, essential function of a software developer's job and a business necessity, this policy could be challenged under the Griggs principle as having a disparate impact.

• Example 2: Specific Educational Degree for a General Management Role

  A large retail chain mandates that all candidates for a store manager position must possess a Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree from a university ranked in the top 20 nationally. This policy, on its face, appears to be a neutral standard for academic excellence. However, it could have a disparate impact on applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, certain racial or ethnic minority groups, or those who gained extensive management experience through vocational training or military service, as these groups may have historically faced greater barriers to accessing elite higher education. If the retail chain cannot prove that an MBA from a top-20 university is truly essential for successfully performing the duties of a store manager, especially when many qualified candidates might have relevant experience or degrees from other institutions, this requirement could be deemed discriminatory under Griggs.