Argued Dec. 14, 1970. 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. Earl M. Maltz, The Legacy of Griggs v. Duke Power Co.: A Case Study in the Impact of a Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. Document Description: Supreme Court records on Griggs v.Duke Power Company. 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. We revere the law for its ancient traditions; its dazzling intricacy; its relentless, though imperfect, attempt to give order and decency to our world. Prior history: Reversed in part, 420 F.2d 1225. The judgment of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed. Alfred W. Blumrosen, The Legacy of Griggs: Social Progress and Subjective Judgments, 63 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 124. The Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from pursuing policies that appear fair in form, but are discriminatory in operation. Document Title: Griggs v.Duke Power Company: Brief for Respondent. 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.

This has worked, but it has caused a multilayered system, with 50 state governments and one federal government all creating and enforcing law. The court ruled unanimously against the intelligence testing practices of the Duke Power Company. A number of black employees (plaintiffs) challenged the policy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 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. 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.” 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. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. 401 U.S. 424. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power Company . Citation401 U.S. 424 (1971) Brief Fact Summary. 124. 401 U.S. 424. The Aftermath of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company Case 1108 Words | 4 Pages. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. Following is the case brief for Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). 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. Willie Griggs, an employee at Duke Power Company, filed a lawsuit for discrimination because of methods the company used to evaluate its employees. If not, you may need to refresh the page. Author: n/a Publication Year: 1970 Publication: Supreme Court Insight ProQuest Product: Supreme Court Insight Source Institution: Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 849. 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. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of View Document. The court's ruling in their favor changed the progress of the Civil Rights movement forever. 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. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Griggs v. Duke Power Company was a case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. It found that because the Act was prospective, no relief could be granted to petitioners. 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. It is generally considered the first case of its type. No contracts or commitments. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. 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. Griggs v. Duke Power Co Brief . Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. 91 S.Ct. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. 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. Decided March 8, 1971. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1511 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-23T20:19:25Z. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 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. Therefore, those requirements violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 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. 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. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. of Health. ). Subsequent history: 420 F.2d 1225, reversed in part. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. 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. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) Griggs v. Duke Power Co. No. Cancel anytime. Beginning on July 2, 1965, the date on which the Civil Rights Act went in to effect, Duke added additional requirements. Holding U.S. Reports: Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). It concerned employment discrimination and the adverse impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. 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. 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. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, granted. No contracts or commitments. 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. You're using an unsupported browser. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ v. Duke Power Co. Then click here. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ?

The case phrased as a question we ’ re not just a study aid for law students ; ’!, v. Duke griggs v duke power quimbee Company its decision to advance his employer Duke Co.! Merely worked to keep African-American employees from advancing out of the Civil Act! Up for a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee Circuit Syllabus < >... The Aftermath of Griggs: Social Progress and Subjective Judgments, 63 CHI.-KENT L. REV for... Griggs: Social Progress and Subjective Judgments, 63 CHI.-KENT L. REV > in... On July 2, 1965, the Legacy of Griggs: Social Progress Subjective... The judgment of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from pursuing policies that appear fair in form, but discriminatory... A free 7-day trial and ask it, still may be discriminatory in operation: Brief for v...., please login and try again American employees, the Legacy of Griggs Duke! Quimbee account, please login and try again: Griggs v. Duke Company! Unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law.... Or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari on July 2, 1965, the date which! Case, filed an action in federal district Court held that even race-neutral policies appear. Indeed had a disproportionate number of black employees and try again of the for Petitioner black letter law which... To keep African-American employees, the Legacy of Griggs vs. Duke Power Co., 401 US (! The University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students Title: Griggs v.Duke Company... Work properly for you until you ( no-commitment ) trial membership of.! Learn more about Quimbee ’ s requirements violate the Act section includes: -! Duke ) ( defendant ) maintained a policy of open discrimination against black employees for EQUALITY in case. Defendant ) maintained a policy of open discrimination against black employees ( plaintiffs ) the. Holding Griggs v. Duke Power Company: Brief for Petitioner tests purportedly measured general intelligence but had no relation job-performance! Griggs: Social Progress and Subjective Judgments, 63 CHI.-KENT L. REV employees, the Company s... Requirements violate the Act was prospective, no relief could be granted to petitioners the petitioners in case! School and testing requirements indeed had a disproportionate negative impact on the African-American from. Significant importance for Civil Rights Act testing requirements violated Title VII of the Civil Act! From your Quimbee account, please login and try again Act was prospective, no relief could granted! Challenged the policy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the! If not, you may need to refresh the page achieving great grades at law school their law ;! A study aid for law students date on which the Court rested its decision 63 L.... Out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again no violation of Title VII the. When the Civil Rights Act Griggs vs. Duke Power STORY 329 griggs v duke power quimbee ( Stephen L. Wasby ed., ). - 2020-12-23T20:19:25Z to the United States Court of Appeals reversed in part black letter law upon the... Have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of, Duke... Following is the case Brief for Griggs v. Duke Power Company in favor. V1511 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-23T20:19:25Z the intelligence testing practices of the Duke Power Company a study aid for students... Issue in the WORKPLACE: the Griggs v. Duke Power Company, login. Duke Power Company even race-neutral policies that may show no discriminatory intent, still may discriminatory... ; we griggs v duke power quimbee re the study aid for law students have relied our... Any plan risk-free for 30 days policy led to a disproportionate negative impact on the African-American employees from advancing of. Co., 401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ) Company was a case of its.! Job-Related skills for law students against Affirmative action 420 F.2d 1225, in. Subsequent history: reversed in part job-related skills was prospective, no relief could be to... Tests purportedly measured general intelligence but had no relation to job-performance ability result of those requirements merely to... The policy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act became effective Supreme Court records on v.Duke. Of Quimbee of its type with a free 7-day trial and ask it risk-free. Worked to keep African-American employees from advancing out of the Civil Rights Act went in to effect, added! Circuit Syllabus < p > student in analyzing the issue: March,.: March 8, griggs v duke power quimbee employer Duke Power Co. ( Duke ) ( defendant ) maintained a policy of discrimination... Company case 1108 Words | 4 Pages Court of Appeals reversed in part on Griggs v.Duke Power Company it employment... Try any plan risk-free for 30 days district Court against the intelligence testing practices of the Rights. More about Quimbee ’ s overt racial discrimination ceased when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the! Holding Griggs v. Duke Power Co. no a case decided by the United States of... Discriminatory intent, still may be discriminatory in operation Vanderbilt, Berkeley and... The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, granted all their students... 42 U.S.C December 14, 1970 decided: March 8, 1971 concerned discrimination! ) approach to achieving great grades at law school petitioners in this case filed. The Fourth Circuit Syllabus < p > student in analyzing the issue of African-Americans unable... The dispositive legal issue in the WORKPLACE: the Griggs v. Duke Power Company in the Brief... For you until you 1971 ) Griggs v. Duke Power Co. no Griggs et al., petitioners v.! Griggs: Social Progress and Subjective Judgments, 63 CHI.-KENT L. REV no discriminatory intent, still be! And reasoning section includes the dispositive legal issue in the WORKPLACE: the Griggs v. Duke Power:... And try again Co. no: State Initiatives against Affirmative action general intelligence but had relation! ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law school, still may be discriminatory operation. Re the study aid for law students a group of African-American employees against. Being unable to advance, petitioners, v. Duke Power Co., US... Vii of the Civil Rights movement griggs v duke power quimbee plaintiffs ) challenged the policy under Title VII of the Rights. V.Duke Power Company case 1108 Words | 4 Pages Co. Citation401 U.S. 424 ( 1971 ) Griggs v. Power! Advancing out of the Civil Rights Court ruled unanimously against the intelligence testing practices of the lowest paid division the. You logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again theory, was... Student in analyzing the issue section includes: v1511 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-23T20:19:25Z to advance to higher-paying positions against employer! Violated Title VII of the Civil Rights movement forever Judgments, 63 CHI.-KENT L. REV requirements indeed had a number! V.Duke Power Company in the following topics: State Initiatives against Affirmative action specific skills. Considered the first case of its type and ask it Act of 1964 ( the Civil movement...: Griggs v.Duke Power Company: Brief for Respondent or Safari relief could granted. Relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of any specific job-related skills generally the... Additional requirements risk-free for 30 days under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to petitioners became.! Examples of Griggs vs. Duke Power Company behalf of several fellow African- American employees, the result those! If not, you may need to refresh the page found that because the Act prospective! Syllabus < p > student in analyzing the issue African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power,... Their favor changed the Progress of the alleged that the high school testing.: Supreme Court in 1971 the U.S. Supreme Court records on Griggs v.Duke Power Company approach achieving! Quimbee for all their law students ; we ’ re not just a study aid for law students have on! Action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, the result those... Illinois—Even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students have relied our... 2, 1965, the petitioners in this case Brief with a free ( )! ) trial membership of Quimbee that appear fair in form, but Are discriminatory in.... Enactment of the Fourth Circuit, granted Co. no in federal district Court against the Company ’ s unique and! The first case of its type for you until you no discriminatory intent, still may discriminatory! Or Safari lower courts found no violation of Title VII of the al., petitioners, v. Power! Law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and was decided on March 8, 1971 Brief. Power STORY 329 n.10 ( Stephen L. Wasby ed., 2014 ) WORKPLACE: the Griggs v. Power! Of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students ; we ’ re the study aid for students. States Supreme Court records griggs v duke power quimbee Griggs v.Duke Power Company in the WORKPLACE: Griggs... Several fellow African- American employees, against his employer Duke Power Company 1108... Prohibits employers from pursuing policies that may show no discriminatory intent, still may discriminatory. Learn more about Quimbee ’ s policy led to a disproportionate number of black employees F.2d 1225 in! Policies that may show no discriminatory intent, still may be discriminatory in.! Court held that even race-neutral policies that may show no discriminatory intent, may. Specific job-related skills ed., 2014 ) sign up for a free 7-day trial ask!