What significant principle was established by the case Griggs v. Duke Power Co.?

What significant principle was established by the case Griggs v. Duke Power Co.?

• A. Job security for all employees
• B. The principle of disparate impact in employment discrimination
• C. The legality of non-compete clauses
• D. The importance of employee performance reviews

Answer: (B)

The principle established by Griggs v. Duke Power Co. centers on the concept of disparate impact in employment discrimination. This landmark case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971, emphasized that employment practices that appear neutral on their face can still be discriminatory if they disproportionately affect a particular group and are not directly related to job performance. In Griggs, Duke Power Company's requirement for a high school diploma and passing scores on certain aptitude tests for job placements significantly affected African American applicants. The Court ruled that these requirements were not job-related and thus constituted a form of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision underscored that employers must ensure that their hiring and promotion practices do not inadvertently disadvantage minority groups unless the practices are necessary for job performance. The case set a precedent that actions taken by employers, even if not overtly discriminatory, could still be scrutinized for their impact on protected classes, thus shaping the landscape of employment discrimination law.

The principle established by Griggs v. Duke Power Co. centers on the concept of disparate impact in employment discrimination. This landmark case, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971, emphasized that employment practices that appear neutral on their face can still be discriminatory if they disproportionately affect a particular group and are not directly related to job performance.

In Griggs, Duke Power Company's requirement for a high school diploma and passing scores on certain aptitude tests for job placements significantly affected African American applicants. The Court ruled that these requirements were not job-related and thus constituted a form of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision underscored that employers must ensure that their hiring and promotion practices do not inadvertently disadvantage minority groups unless the practices are necessary for job performance.

The case set a precedent that actions taken by employers, even if not overtly discriminatory, could still be scrutinized for their impact on protected classes, thus shaping the landscape of employment discrimination law.