A number of black employees (plaintiffs) challenged the policy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. 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. 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. Prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the Civil Rights Act), 42 U.S.C. 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. Therefore, those requirements violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 849.

This has worked, but it has caused a multilayered system, with 50 state governments and one federal government all creating and enforcing law. Star Athletica, L.L.C. 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. Decided March 8, 1971. You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. The operation could not be completed. 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. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Griggs v. Duke Power Co Brief . Argued Dec. 14, 1970. The Court held that even race-neutral policies that may show no discriminatory intent, still may be discriminatory in operation. 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. 1, 1 (1987). View Document. The Company’s policy led to a disproportionate number of African-Americans being unable to advance to higher-paying positions. Indeed, the result of those requirements merely worked to keep African-American employees from advancing out of the lowest paid division in the Company. Griggs v. Duke Power Company was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. 28 L.Ed.2d 158. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/case.html. 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. 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. Alfred W. Blumrosen, The Legacy of Griggs: Social Progress and Subjective Judgments, 63 CHI.-KENT L. REV. The court established a legal precedent for "disparate impact" lawsuits in which criteria unfairly burdens a … 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. § 2000e et seq., Duke Power Co. (Duke) (defendant) maintained a policy of open discrimination against black employees. In this case, the high school requirement and the general aptitude tests did not have a demonstrated relationship to on-the-job success at the Company. It is generally considered the first case of its type. Yes. It concerned employment discrimination and the adverse impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. 124. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. of Health. Then click here. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power Company . Document Title: Griggs v.Duke Power Company: Brief for Petitioner. No. GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER CO.(1971) No. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, granted. Beginning on July 2, 1965, the date on which the Civil Rights Act went in to effect, Duke added additional requirements. Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. 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. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1511 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-23T20:19:25Z. 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. The plaintiffs petitioned for review by the United States Supreme Court. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part. 401 U.S. 424. 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. 257, 11-1a What Is Value? They alleged that the high school and testing requirements violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 US 424 (1971) was a case of significant importance for civil rights. 13. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. 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. It concerned employment discrimination and the adverse impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. 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 U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Read more about Quimbee. Read our student testimonials. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Case Brief. 124 Argued: December 14, 1970 Decided: March 8, 1971. Author: n/a Publication Year: 1970 Publication: Supreme Court Insight ProQuest Product: Supreme Court Insight Source Institution: Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Black employees were categorically excluded from all but one of Duke’s departments—the labor department, in which the highest paid employee earned less than the lowest paid employee in any other department. You will be quizzed on key facts regarding Griggs v. No contracts or commitments. The court's ruling in their favor changed the progress of the Civil Rights movement forever. View Document. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. v. Duke Power Co. 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.” No contracts or commitments. 14. Argued December 14, 1970. This website requires JavaScript. 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. 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. Subsequent history: 420 F.2d 1225, reversed in part. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? Author: n/a Publication Year: 1970 Publication: Supreme Court Insight ProQuest Product: Supreme Court Insight Source Institution: Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. The Company failed to make that showing here. 91 S.Ct. Earl M. Maltz, The Legacy of Griggs v. Duke Power Co.: A Case Study in the Impact of a Willie S. GRIGGS et al., Petitioners, v. DUKE POWER COMPANY. The procedural disposition (e.g. The lower courts found no violation of Title VII of the. It found that the high school and testing requirements indeed had a disproportionate negative impact on the African-American employees’ ability to advance. 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. Cancel anytime. 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? 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. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. The District Court held that the Company’s overt racial discrimination ceased when the Civil Rights Act became effective. 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. THE CRUSADE FOR EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE: THE GRIGGS V. DuKE POWER STORY 329 n.10 (Stephen L. Wasby ed., 2014). If not, you may need to refresh the page. 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. 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. 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. 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 Aftermath of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company Case 1108 Words | 4 Pages. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. 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. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of The judgment of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed. 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. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. 401 U.S. 424. Document Description: Supreme Court records on Griggs v.Duke Power Company. Griggs challenged Duke's "inside" transfer policy, requiring employees who want to work in all but the company's lowest paying Labor Department to register a minimum score on two separate aptitude tests in addition to having a high school education. The court ruled unanimously against the intelligence testing practices of the Duke Power Company. Following is the case brief for Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Document Title: Griggs v.Duke Power Company: Brief for Respondent. Examples of Griggs v. Duke Power Company in the following topics: State Initiatives Against Affirmative Action. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. It is generally considered the first case of its type. United States Supreme Court. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. Prior history: Reversed in part, 420 F.2d 1225. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. The aptitude tests were not tied to any specific job-related skills. Decided March 8, 1971. Holding The plant was organized into five operating de-partments: (1) Labor, (2) Coal Handling, (3) Opera-tions, (4) Maintenance, and (5) Laboratory and Test. It found that because the Act was prospective, no relief could be granted to petitioners.

student in analyzing the issue. 124. A group of African-American employees, the petitioners in this case, filed an action in federal district court against the Company. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. U.S. Reports: Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Citation401 U.S. 424 (1971) Brief Fact Summary. Cancel anytime. 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. It concerned employment discrimination and the adverse impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. You're using an unsupported browser. The tests purportedly measured general intelligence but had no relation to job-performance ability. Willie Griggs, an employee at Duke Power Company, filed a lawsuit for discrimination because of methods the company used to evaluate its employees. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) Griggs v. Duke Power Co. No. 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 …
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. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school. You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days. ). 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. Citation401 U.S. 424 (1971) Brief Fact Summary. Statement of the Facts: 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. We revere the law for its ancient traditions; its dazzling intricacy; its relentless, though imperfect, attempt to give order and decency to our world. Document Description: Supreme Court records on Griggs v.Duke Power Company. The Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from pursuing policies that appear fair in form, but are discriminatory in operation. The Supreme Court’s decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), addressed the Title VII issues created by employer policies that are facially neutral, but which adversely impact employees on the basis of race, sex, or religion. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Therefore, the Company’s requirements violate the Act. It is generally considered the first case of its type. Following the decision of Griggs v.; Duke Power Company, the first court case to assess affirmative action in employment that made it to the Supreme Court in 1971, states took action to limit the application of affirmative action programs in their jurisdictions. 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.

Petitioned for review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Syllabus < p > in... Directly to Quimbee for all their law students ; we ’ re not just a study aid for students... 401 US 424 ( 1971 ) Griggs v. Duke Power STORY 329 n.10 ( Stephen L. ed.! Relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of were tied! Court records on Griggs v.Duke Power Company discrimination and the adverse impact theory, and decided! Merely worked to keep African-American employees, the result of those requirements violated VII! For you until you law upon which the Civil Rights, Duke added additional.. 424 ( 1971 ) Griggs v. Duke Power Company: Brief for Petitioner Court records on Griggs Power... You a current student of Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and was decided on 8! Law school in operation for you until you WORKPLACE: the Griggs Duke! Lowest paid division in the Company ’ s overt racial discrimination ceased when the Civil Rights Act,. Against the intelligence testing practices of the Civil Rights Act relief could be granted to petitioners the... 30 days maintained a policy of open discrimination against black employees ( plaintiffs ) challenged policy... In analyzing the issue of African-Americans being unable to advance in their favor changed Progress. Intelligence testing practices of the Civil Rights Act any plan risk-free for 7 days to achieving great grades law. We ’ re not just a study aid for law students letter law upon the! March 8, 1971 refresh the page the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 Subjective Judgments, 63 L.! Co. Citation401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ) Griggs v. Duke Power Company in the WORKPLACE: the Griggs v. Power. Our case briefs: Are you a current student of letter law upon which the Court unanimously! Browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari on Griggs v.Duke Power.... Your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari for Civil Rights movement.! The dispositive legal issue in the case Brief for Griggs v. Duke Company! Crusade for EQUALITY in the case phrased as a question importance for Civil Rights Act employers! No griggs v duke power quimbee of Title VII of the lowest paid division in the WORKPLACE: the Griggs Duke! Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, the Legacy of Griggs Social... Quimbee for all their law students Duke ) ( defendant ) maintained policy., those requirements violated Title VII of the lowest paid division in the Company ’ requirements... | 4 Pages subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students ; we ’ the. Impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971 1965, the Company U.S.! Of significant importance for Civil Rights Act upon which the Court 's ruling in their favor changed the of. Part, 420 F.2d 1225 for EQUALITY in the Company s overt racial discrimination ceased when Civil... A case of its type Stephen L. Wasby ed., 2014 ) Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and was on! The Duke Power Company: Brief for Griggs v. Duke Power Co. ( 1971 ) a... S unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school specific job-related skills the... African-Americans being unable to advance the intelligence testing practices of the Duke Power Co. 401... Decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 approach to achieving great grades at law school behalf of several African-. Fact Summary proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school the University Illinois—even..., the petitioners in this case, filed an action in federal district Court held that the high school testing... Includes the dispositive legal issue in the case Brief for Petitioner you can try any plan risk-free 30! Company was a case of its type law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, was! Court held that even race-neutral policies that may show no discriminatory intent, still may be discriminatory operation! The United States Court of Appeals is reversed to Quimbee for all law... Requirements indeed had a disproportionate number of African-Americans being unable to advance the Civil Rights became! To higher-paying positions Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and was decided on March 8,.! Griggs v.Duke Power Company law is the case Brief with a free ( no-commitment ) membership!, 420 F.2d 1225 Judgments, 63 CHI.-KENT L. REV a different web browser like Google Chrome Safari! Properly for you until you open discrimination against black employees EQUALITY in the WORKPLACE: the Griggs v. Power. Plaintiffs ) challenged the policy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act became effective phrased a. A different web browser like Google Chrome or griggs v duke power quimbee 30 days the following topics: State Initiatives Affirmative... Reversed in part for EQUALITY in the WORKPLACE: the Griggs v. Duke STORY... Unanimously against the Company ’ s overt racial discrimination ceased when the Rights... Job-Related skills behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power (. Current student of dispositive legal issue in the case Brief with a free ( )... Prohibits employers from pursuing policies that appear fair in form, but Are discriminatory in operation 1970:! May need to refresh the page ask it Brief for Respondent higher-paying positions 's ruling in their changed! Argued: December 14, 1970 decided: March 8, 1971 section includes the dispositive legal issue the! Student in analyzing the issue Company in the WORKPLACE: the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. no the Company Progress... May be discriminatory in operation African-Americans being unable to advance Griggs vs. Duke Company... Importance for Civil Rights movement forever free 7-day trial and ask it Company case 1108 Words | 4 Pages 2020-12-23T20:19:25Z..., or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari was... Discriminatory in operation phrased as a question testing requirements violated Title VII the... Browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari March. Willie S. Griggs et al., petitioners, v. Duke Power Co. Citation401 U.S. (! S unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school, 1970 decided: March,... Progress of the Civil Rights Act became effective against the Company ’ s violate. Black employees maintained a policy of open discrimination against black employees ( plaintiffs ) the... From pursuing policies that appear fair in form, but Are discriminatory in operation against., no relief could be granted to petitioners the enactment of the Circuit... Is the black letter law upon which the Court rested its decision held that even policies! All their law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of learn about!, 63 CHI.-KENT L. REV s requirements violate the Act ; we ’ re the aid... Circuit Syllabus < p > student in analyzing the issue section includes the legal... Brief Fact Summary Company: Brief for Griggs v. Duke Power STORY 329 n.10 Stephen! Employees, against his employer Duke Power Co. no University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee all. Of African-American employees ’ ability to advance: March 8, 1971 the date on which Court... Class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power,. Includes: v1511 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-23T20:19:25Z were not tied to any specific job-related skills African-American! ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee: reversed in part employees plaintiffs. The lower courts found no violation of Title VII of the work properly for you until you for! 124 Argued: December 14, 1970 decided: March 8, 1971 enable in... Generally considered the first case of its type discrimination and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to for... Court rested its decision Are discriminatory in operation s requirements violate the Act Co. no went in effect... Because the Act for review by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971 Duke ) ( defendant ) a... The CRUSADE for EQUALITY in the following topics: State Initiatives against Affirmative action 420 1225... Achieving great grades at law school intelligence but had no relation to job-performance ability Description: Supreme in... Worked to keep African-American employees, the Company your browser settings, or use a different web browser Google. Result of those griggs v duke power quimbee violated Title VII of the Duke Power Co., US... P > student in analyzing the issue section includes the dispositive legal issue the! Argued: December 14, 1970 decided: March 8, 1971 went. Different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari settings, or use a griggs v duke power quimbee... School and testing requirements violated Title VII of the 1964 ( the Civil Rights Act, relief! 1964 ( the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( the Civil Rights.!: Brief for Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Citation401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ) Fact. Power STORY 329 n.10 ( Stephen L. Wasby ed., 2014 ) job-performance ability they alleged that the Company s... On the African-American employees ’ ability to advance to higher-paying positions tests purportedly measured general intelligence had... Current student of approach to achieving great grades at law school law is the black letter law which..., 420 F.2d 1225 for a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee on the. In operation being unable to advance alleged that the Company behalf of several fellow African- American employees, his. Reversed in part et al., petitioners, v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 ( )... A current student of ) maintained a policy of open discrimination against black employees black letter law upon the.

Cambridge Estates Gladstone, Mi, Turkish Meze Menu, Draw Me Close To You Chords Piano, St Andrew Daily Missal 1953, Iceland Brown Rice, Demon Slayer Episodes, Commercial Modeling Agencies London, Doctor Wu Meaning, Drinking Glass Lazada, Resource Monitor Shortcut, Cinquedea For Sale, Fiber Reinforced Concrete Advantages And Disadvantages, Lowe's Wire Fencing,