Master Landmark Title VII decision establishing the disparate impact theory and the employer’s burden to show business necessity for facially neutral practices that disproportionately exclude protected groups. with this comprehensive case brief.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is the Supreme Court’s foundational case on disparate impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court held that employment practices that are neutral on their face but operate to disproportionately exclude racial minorities violate Title VII unless the employer proves those practices are job related and consistent with business necessity. This decision shifted the focus of Title VII analysis away from the employer’s subjective intent and toward the practical consequences of employment policies. Griggs established core principles still used today, including the employer’s burden to show a manifest relationship between a challenged requirement and successful job performance. It also articulated that Title VII was enacted to remove artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate as built-in headwinds for protected groups. The case provides the textbook template for analyzing testing and educational credential requirements that perpetuate inequities without serving demonstrable business needs.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Duke Power Company operated the Dan River Steam Station in North Carolina. Before July 2, 1965 (the effective date of Title VII), the company openly segregated its workforce, limiting Black employees to its lowest paid Labor Department and barring them from higher-paying departments. On the day Title VII took effect, the company ended its explicit racial restrictions but adopted facially neutral requirements for hiring and transfers into all departments other than Labor. Specifically, applicants and incumbent employees seeking to transfer had to possess a high school diploma and pass two standardized aptitude tests (the Wonderlic Cognitive Ability Test and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test). The record showed that Black employees disproportionately lacked high school diplomas and had lower pass rates on the tests. Duke Power did not validate the tests or diploma requirement as predictive of job performance in the specific positions at issue, and many white employees hired before Title VII without diplomas or tests were performing satisfactorily in the better-paying jobs. Willie Griggs and other Black employees filed a class action under Title VII, challenging the diploma and testing requirements as unlawful because they perpetuated the effects of past discrimination and had a disparate impact. The district court upheld Duke’s requirements; the Fourth Circuit affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Do facially neutral employment requirements—specifically a high school diploma and aptitude tests—that disproportionately exclude Black applicants and employees violate Title VII when the employer has not shown those requirements are job related and consistent with business necessity?
Title VII prohibits not only overt or intentional discrimination but also employment practices that are fair in form yet discriminatory in operation. Where a plaintiff shows that a practice causes a disparate impact on a protected class, the employer must demonstrate that the challenged practice has a manifest relationship to the employment in question—that is, it is job related and consistent with business necessity. The absence of discriminatory intent does not save a practice that disproportionately excludes protected groups and is not shown to measure or predict successful job performance. Section 703(h) of Title VII permits professionally developed ability tests only if they are not designed, intended, or used to discriminate and are demonstrably related to job performance.
Yes. Duke Power’s high school diploma and aptitude test requirements unlawfully discriminated in violation of Title VII because they disproportionately excluded Black workers and were not shown to be related to job performance or justified by business necessity. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and remanded.
The Court emphasized that the core purpose of Title VII is to eliminate artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers that operate to deny equal employment opportunities. Congress directed the Act’s thrust toward the consequences of employment practices, not merely the motivations behind them. Thus, the absence of discriminatory intent does not immunize a policy that has discriminatory effects. The challenged diploma and testing requirements had a stark disparate impact on Black workers at Duke’s Dan River plant. Duke did not show that a high school education bore a manifest relationship to performance in the jobs at issue, nor did it validate the two aptitude tests as predictors of success in those specific roles. Evidence that white employees without diplomas who had been hired before Title VII performed satisfactorily in higher-paying departments undercut Duke’s contention that the new requirements reflected essential job qualifications. The company’s asserted goal of improving workforce quality, standing alone, was insufficient; Title VII requires proof that the criteria actually measure the ability to do the job. Interpreting Section 703(h), the Court held that professionally developed tests can be used only if they are demonstrably job related; they may not be used to perpetuate prior discrimination by screening out protected groups absent proof of job relevance. The Court found the EEOC’s interpretive guidelines persuasive support for this reading. Because Duke failed to carry its burden to show business necessity and job relatedness, the diploma and testing requirements violated Title VII.
Griggs is the canonical disparate impact case. It established that Title VII reaches practices that disproportionately exclude protected classes even without proof of discriminatory intent, and it placed the burden on employers to justify such practices as job related and consistent with business necessity. Griggs underlies modern validation standards for employment tests and educational credentials and informs the use of statistical evidence in discrimination cases. Subsequent decisions refined these principles (e.g., Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody on validation and remedies; Dothard v. Rawlinson on height and weight requirements; Wards Cove on burden allocation, later modified by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which codified disparate impact at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k) and restored a robust burden on employers). For law students, Griggs provides the framework for analyzing credentialing, testing, and other neutral-seeming selection devices that may entrench inequality unless supported by demonstrable job-related necessity.
Disparate treatment requires proof of intentional discrimination (different treatment because of a protected trait). Disparate impact addresses facially neutral practices that disproportionately exclude a protected group regardless of intent. Griggs is the seminal disparate impact case: it holds that neutral policies with adverse effects violate Title VII unless the employer proves they are job related and consistent with business necessity.
The employer bears the burden to prove business necessity and job relatedness—often by demonstrating a manifest relationship between the practice and successful job performance. For tests, professional validation (content, criterion-related, or construct validation) tying the test to the job’s essential functions is typical. Generalized claims about improving workforce quality are insufficient.
Griggs held that Section 703(h) does not create a safe harbor for all standardized tests. Tests are permissible only if they are not designed, intended, or used to discriminate and are demonstrably related to job performance. A test that produces disparate impact cannot be used merely because it is professionally developed; it must be validated as predicting or measuring the abilities actually needed for the job.
Once the plaintiff shows a specific practice that causes a significant disparate impact on a protected group, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the practice is job related and consistent with business necessity. If the employer meets that burden, the plaintiff may still prevail by showing an alternative practice that would serve the employer’s needs with less disparate impact. This allocation was later codified and clarified by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Key evidence included that many white employees hired pre-Act without diplomas or tests performed satisfactorily in the higher-paying jobs; the company did not validate the tests as predictors of job success; and the high school diploma requirement bore no demonstrated connection to the actual skills needed. The disproportionate exclusion of Black employees indicated an adverse impact not justified by job relevance.
Griggs informed later Supreme Court decisions on validation and remedies (Albemarle Paper), physical standards (Dothard), and burden allocation (Wards Cove, narrowed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991). In practice, it spurred widespread adoption of job analyses, validation studies, and adverse impact monitoring in selection procedures to ensure that tests and credentials are truly tied to job performance.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. reframed Title VII litigation by focusing on outcomes rather than motives. It held that neutral policies cannot be used to freeze historical inequalities unless the employer proves those policies are necessary measures of job capability. By demanding a manifest relationship between selection criteria and job performance, the Court gave substantive force to Title VII’s promise of equal employment opportunity. For students and practitioners, Griggs supplies the analytical blueprint for testing and credential cases, clarifies burden shifting in disparate impact litigation, and underscores the importance of rigorous job-related validation. Its legacy persists in statutes, regulations, and workplace practices designed to ensure that selection tools measure what matters: the ability to do the job.