The ADEA which was passed by Congress in December of points out the disadvantage of older workers in retaining employment or regaining employment when displaced from jobs. Congress found that setting arbitrary age limits without regard to potential for job performance was common and that unemployment with attendant deterioration in skills and morale was higher for older workers as compared to those who are younger. Those protected by the ADEA, with certain exceptions and exemptions to be discussed later, are individuals who are at least 40 years of age.
Mar 08, Facts of the case Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African- American employees, against his employer 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.
On appeal from a district court's dismissal of the claim, the Court of Appeals found no discriminatory practices.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari. Question Did Duke Griggs vs duke power Company's intradepartmental transfer policy, requiring a high school education and the achievement of minimum scores on two separate aptitude tests, violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?
Media for Griggs v. Duke Power Company Warren E. Greenberg, you may proceed. Chief Justice and may it please the Court. The issue is one of statutory construction of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of and the particular statutory provision for which I would like to draw the Court's attention appears on page 2 of our brief.
The statute makes it unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise to discriminate against him with regard to race. And then in Section 2 which more particularly applies to the issue we have pending here to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunity or otherwise adversely affect the status as an employee because of race and other forbidden reasons.
The question presented in this case is whether intelligence tests and a high school graduation requirement may be use as a pre-requisite to promotion from the job of laborer to the job of coal-handler and perhaps other jobs at respondent's power plant.
When these tests screen out Negroes at a significantly higher rate than they screen out whites and there has been no demonstration that the tests and the high school requirement predict ability to do the job and indeed there is some evidence to the contrary that they do not predict the ability to do the job.
Now, the court below held in the case of employees employed after the high school requirement was instituted that the statute was not violated and as I read the opinion of the court below and the position of respondents, they rests on three separate grounds, that first of all that there was no demonstration of an intent to discriminate.
In fact, the record in some parts of the country that the test survey legitimate business need that is that certain employees are not fully promotable throughout the plant to higher positions and that the high school education requirements help select employees who are.
Now, before elaborating our argument, we would like to make our position clear with regard to ability testing. No employer, we submit under the statute is required to employ anyone who is unable to do the job and any employer may use tests and educational requirements which predict whether an employee or perspective employee can do the job.
But if the tests that's used or the educational requirement that's used screens out members of a race or of a group protected by the statute and does not predict who can do the job or does not have predictive validity as the industrial psychologist use the terminus this record use the term, then it cannot be justified merely on the basis of good faith.
A good faith or intent, we submit is an elusive concept which regularly, frequently is advance in civil rights cases. We hear good faith defenses in school segregation cases, in jury discrimination cases, in voting discrimination cases and the courts have regularly responded that they look to results and not make an effort to read the mind of an employer or indeed something much more difficult to do to read the mind of a corporation as to what it intends to do by the application of certain standards and tests.
Indeed, while it has not been possible on this record to challenge the good faith of the respondent because that's just something that one can very rarely develop evidence on.Join over , law students who have used Quimbee to achieve academic success in law school through expert-written outlines, a massive bank of case briefs, engaging video lessons, comprehensive practice exams with model answers, and practice questions.
In the years since the PDA was enacted, charges alleging pregnancy discrimination have increased substantially. In fiscal year (FY) , more than 3, such charges were filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and state and local Fair Employment Practices Agencies, but in FY , 5, charges were filed.
United States Supreme Court GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER CO., () No. Argued: December 14, Decided: March 8, Negro employees at respondent's generating plant brought this action, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of , 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.
Griggs v. Duke Power Company was a landmark employment discrimination case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in It concerned the legality, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of , of high school diplomas and intelligence test scores as prerequisites for employment.
Griggs v. Duke Power: Implications for College Credentialing By Bryan O’Keefe and Richard Vedder Does the increase in college enrollment over the past 30 years partly reflect the changing pressures on employers based on a Supreme. A toke with your golf stroke: does pot have a place on the green?