Conner 1
Samantha Conner
McKnight
11 May 2012
Profession or Prejudice
Rooting back to slavery, civil rights for African Americans took many years to
become fully established. Even when the laws were set, it took time for society to adjust
behaviorally. Discrimination is a form of prejudice that possesses quite a history in the
United States. When one discriminates against another, he or she is differentiating a
person from what he or she considers as normal. People may discriminate by race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin. Of course, all humans are diverse, and today,
many people may wonder how factors like the color of their skin would divide them in
society. When a person enters a workplace, one would not think skin color would hinder
his or her success. The amount of knowledge a person retains would not seem to be
related to his or her race. In fact, a person shouldn’t be discriminated against in any
situation, let alone employment. However, the Duke Power Company is a company that
believed there was no harm in practicing segregation in the workplace. When African
Americans attempted to receive jobs through this company, a significant amount of
them were denied the employment opportunity. Even when this type of discrimination
became illegal, the company’s employers were still raising suspicions for the
employees. The actions of the company were soon brought to the Supreme Court by a
group of employees in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company.
Griggs V. Duke Power Company is a Supreme Court Case that originated from
discrimination in the workplace. It all began with the issue of supposedly unlawful
Conner 2
requirements for employment given by Duke Power Company. According to the
Supreme Court Case, employment at the power plant for this company was not
awarded to a candidate unless he or she had passed the given intelligence tests or
possessed a high school diploma (“G. v. D.P.C.” Supreme). However, many
occupations are unrelated to the knowledge obtained to receive a high school diploma.
When this court case took place, many African Americans had been brought up with a
lack of education due to early discrimination in schooling systems. The Texas Journal
on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights explains how the required tests from the Duke Power
Company were disqualifying many more African Americans than Whites from receiving
jobs offered as more desirable or higher paying (Didech 55-81). Writers from the
Michigan Law Review believe that during this time, some white workers of Duke Power
Co. were not required to take any tests to receive their jobs or become promoted, and
neither had they received high school diplomas (Blumrosen 59-110). If this suspicion
were true, it would be highly unconstitutional for the company to be performing such
discriminatory actions toward their employees. Another issue brought up by the
Supreme Court Case was the fact that only fourteen out of ninety five employees were
African Americans at the company’s Dan River Steam Station (“G. v. D.P.C.” Supreme).
It was as though the company believed that African Americans would not be successful
workers so they hired them quite sparingly. Another issue brought up by the Michigan
Law Review was the Duke Power Company’s history of employment in African
American workers. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1965, they were only assigned to
perform janitorial and low-level maintenance work (Blumrosen 59-110). Many of these
Conner 3
issues had raised suspicions of discrimination in the Duke Power Company, which led
to its controversial law suit.
The Griggs v Duke Power Company court case occurred only after several
precedents had been set. Discrimination had been an issue for many years prior to the
case, and was not completely eliminated from the Constitution until the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 was established. Writers of the Michigan Journal of Gender and Law confirm
that eliminating discrimination in employment was the goal of Title VII of The Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (Niedrich 25-112). Before the establishment of this act, discrimination was
common in the process of employment. The Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil
Rights reported that Duke Power Co. had openly discriminated by race, giving African
Americans the lowest paying jobs until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was established
(Didech 55-81). However, this act did not seem to oppress the discrimination.
Employers continued to discriminate in hiring employees, which resulted in the Fair
Housing Act. According to writers of the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems,
the Fair Housing Act made it legal for the court to award compensation for damages if a
discriminatory housing act has or is about to occur (Bavafa 491-515). Reporters of the
Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal confirmed President Kennedy’s reflection
on discrimination in employment as a particular cruelty (Crabtree 433-466). When this
particular cruelty continued to occur in the public, President Kennedy grew weary.
Writers from the Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights confirmed Kennedy’s
speech:
Conner 4
If an American because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant
open to the Public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school
available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in
short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life that all of us want, then who
among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and
stand in his place? Who among us would be content with the counsels of
patience and delay? One hundred years of delay have passed since
President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons are not
fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not
yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this nation, for all its
hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free till all its citizens are free.
(Didech 55-81)
President Kennedy’s speech set a foundation that prevented many discriminatory
practices. However, his words seemed to have been forgotten when Griggs v Duke
Power Co. began in 1970.
Griggs v Duke Power Co. may be just another case arguing the constitutionality
of segregation and discrimination, but the litigants were the pertinent weaving of the
rope. Willie Griggs was an African American man that represented a group of African
American workers at the Duke Power Company. The Michigan Law Review reported
that the African American workers involved in the Griggs litigation had received formal
education, but this did not help them to obtain better jobs (Blumrosen 59-110). In other
words, the workers suspected they were not being promoted as opposed to Caucasian
workers because of their skin colors. The Michigan Law Review also adds Griggs
Conner 5
definition of discrimination as a term of consequence as opposed to motive, and effect
instead of purpose (Blumrosen 59-110). There were a few factors that led to the
outcome of discriminatory suspicion in the Duke Power Co.’s methods. According to the
Supreme Court case, the Duke power Co. plant was organized by “labor, coal handling,
operations, maintenance, and laboratory and test”, but African American workers were
only given opportunities to work in the labor department (“G. v. D.P.C.” Supreme). The
Griggs litigation took Duke Power Co. to the Supreme Court for their supposedly
unconstitutional practices.
Besides Griggs definition of discrimination and proposal of Duke Power Co.’s
unconstitutionality, the plaintiff had several other points to represent in his favor. The
Supreme Court case referred to historical examples of men and women who performed
their jobs quite effectively without “conventional badges of accomplishments, such as
certificates, diplomas, or degrees.” Though diplomas and tests could be beneficial, they
are not “masters of reality” (“G. v. D.P.C.” Supreme). This weakened the necessity of
Duke Power Co.’s high school diploma requirement, for the knowledge begged of was
not relative to the company’s work. The Supreme Court case also confirmed that the
high school completion requirement and general intelligence test for the company were
not connected to successful performance in the jobs they were given for (“G. v. D.P.C.”
Supreme). If the tests the company was administering were not even related to the
duties required of the jobs given, what could be the reason for their requirement? This
question led many to believe the company was segregating its potential African
American Workers from Caucasians due to their lack of formal education. Writers of the
Michigan Law Review proposed that the tests given must be related to the necessities
Conner 6
of the job as opposed to the rubric of “general abilities and aptitudes” (Blumrosen 59110). Though the idea of relativity of the tests to the work was a crucial proposal, the
Griggs litigation’s strongest argument was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the
U.S. Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to guarantee that
people would not be judged on anything but their employment abilities (Perez). If the
objective of this act had been followed properly, then the employers of Duke Power Co.
would not have administered tests that measure potential workers on anything other
than their employment abilities.
Though the plaintiff presented a sturdy case, the defense had a few arguments
that were quite logical as well. The Supreme Court case refers to a right given to any
employer to insist that applicants must possess all of the qualifications of the job as
stated in Title VII that hiring should be on a basis of qualification rather than the base of
color (“G. v. D.P.C.” Supreme). Duke Power Co made it clear that they were aware of
the meaning of this given right, and had no intention of abusing it. Writers from the
National Review point out that a “practice that may adversely affect a racial group
statistically does not constitute individual discrimination” (Fein 50-51). The defense
suggested that the court re-evaluate the definition of discrimination in the workplace, by
looking at it from a different point of view. Though the plaintiff had already revealed the
company’s acts of discrimination toward employees, the company continued to argue
that they had no intention of committing such acts. According to the Supreme Court
case, the company had claimed that the general intelligence tests that were given to
potential workers were not designed or used to discriminate according to race (“G. v.
D.P.C.” Supreme).The National Review quoted a point presented by a representative of
Conner 7
Duke Power Co: “A grocery store charging a uniform price for light bulbs is not guilty of
racial discrimination simply because the cast places a financial strain on a greater
percentage of blacks than whites” (Fein 50-51). This quote compares selling light bulbs
to all races at a uniform price with the idea of giving all races a uniform test for
employment. One would not consider financial uniformity as an act of discrimination, so
how would the situation of intelligence testing be any different? In addition, the Michigan
Law Review wrote that Senator McClellan had mentioned a proposal that he strongly
believed would permit racial employment qualifications. However, his proposal was
immediately defeated by the court (Blumrosen 59-110). When the defense of Duke
Power Co. had finished presenting all of the details of their argument, both sides of the
case had been argued justifiably. Then it became time for the Supreme Court to
deliberate.
When the court had finished evaluating both sides of the Griggs v Duke Power
Co.Case, the decision contained many new proposals. According to the Columbia
Journal of Law and Social Problems, The Court of Appeals decided that the company’s
requirements were valid under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assuming there is no
discriminatory motivation (Bavafa 491-515). This allowed the company to continue
administering intelligence tests to their employees. However, this part of the decision
did not clearly eliminate the suspected discrimination. Griggs did lack proof of the
accused discrimination, but the Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
reported the decision of the court that a plaintiff is not required to have proof of
intentional discrimination in order to accuse someone of violating Title VII (Gold 171187). Because Griggs had rightfully accused Duke Power Co of violating Article VII in
Conner 8
their requirements, some limitations were added. The Supreme Court case confirms
that the unnecessary and discriminatory barriers to employment were eliminated in the
decision (“G. v. D.P.C.” Supreme). In addition to this, the Texas Journal on Civil
Liberties and Civil Rights reported the specific decision of the Supreme Court to not only
add prohibition of discrimination by race, color, religion, sex, and national origin to Title
VII, but to prohibit the discrimination by facially neutral policies as well (Didech 55-81).
These specific details added to the decision assisted in the prevention of future
discriminatory employment policies.
Several effects occurred shortly after the 1971 decision of Griggs v Duke Power
Co. Reporters of the Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal documented that the
court’s decision greatly expanded individual rights because of the improved disparate
impact theory of Title VII (Crabtree 433-466). Discrimination in the workplace became
less of an issue for the United States. Because of this expansion in civil rights, many
new job opportunities emerged. According to writers of the Texas Journal on Civil
Liberties and Civil Rights, there were new employment opportunities for not only racial
and ethnic minorities, but also many women, due to “better educational opportunities,
changing attitudes, and economic forces” (Didech 55-81). This case quickly set a
precedent for future cases as well. Hamline Law Review wrote that only four years after
the decision, the court declared that to use any selection method that affects a certain
class, an employer must prove a “manifest relationship” (Zisk 27-50). The decisions of
this case also established a unique ruling for future discrimination practices. The U.S.
Department of Justice confirmed that the new disparate impact ruling resulted in the
theory of employment practices being illegal if the effect is discriminatory, even when
Conner 9
employers have no intention of discriminating against their employees (Perez). This
change in the disparate impact theory of Article VII of the constitution is what caused
many of the effects that happened short term in this historical case. The effects of
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. were what made it such a significant Supreme Court case.
Though the short term effects of this case were significant, the case established
many long term effects as well. The decision of the case was in 1971, but it was
translated in many unique ways for years to come. According to the Hofstra Labor and
Employment Law Journal, the Supreme Court went beyond Title VII up until 1980,
expanding the ways a plaintiff could bring a claim (Crabtree 433-466). In addition to this
expansion, the court eventually extended several other rulings. Writers of Daily Life
through History states that the extensions of the ruling were to recruitment practices, job
placement, transfers, and promotions (Salisbury and Kersten). Later, the Civil Rights
Act of 1991 emerged, which referred to points brought up in the Griggs v Duke Power
Co. Supreme Court Case. According to the University of Memphis Law Review, “the
Civil Right Act of 1991 stated that a principle purpose of legislation was to codify the
concepts of business necessity presented in Griggs v Duke Power Co.” (Goldstein 705795). This Act related to discrimination, in the workplace as well. However, it related to
segregation by disability rather than race. Decades later, employment segregation was
not much of a dilemma as it had been in the previous years. The U.S. Department of
Justice wrote that there were no longer amounts of qualified people being screened
away with tests by particular race, national origin, or sex (Perez). Civil Rights in the
United States began to improve over the time following this case. It set a unique
precedent for many court cases regarding discrimination in employment. Writers of the
Conner 10
Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems confirmed that even today courts must
continue to recognize their need for adaptation to judicial doctrine, as in Griggs v Duke
Power Co. (Bavafa 491-515). If it hadn’t been for the decisions made in this case,
society today would be quite different. The changes made in this court case may not
have been drastic immediately after the decisions were made, but in the long run it
created quite a significant impact on civil rights.
Griggs versus Duke Power Company is a case that will forever be significant in
Supreme Court history. This case was a major contribution to the end of employment
discrimination in the United States. When one discriminates against another, he or she
is differentiating a person from what he or she considers as normal. However, what a
person believes is normal for another person, no longer depends on race. Racial
prejudice is now frowned upon by many Americans. It is not often that a person of a
separate minority is turned down an employment opportunity because of the color of his
or her skin. This outcome would not have been possible without the effects of Griggs v
Duke Power Co. It all began when a single company had an employment screening
procedure that required the applicants to take a general intelligence test and have a
high school diploma. Because a group of African American employees decided to
challenge the intentions of this company, a significant amount of future prejudice in
employment became eliminated. American Civil Rights have come quite a long way
since the decisions of this court case. Today, it seems hard to believe that there was a
time that Americans were so cruel to each other just because they did not all share the
same ethnicity. Though controversy between differing beliefs still exists in this country,
skin color does not separate the lifestyles of Americans like it has in the past. Because
Conner 11
of this court case, the country has grown into a racially diverse environment with equal
employment opportunities for many people. Discrimination may still exist today, but
because of this case, segregation is no longer a major issue.
Conner 12
Works Cited
Bavafa, Pouya. "The Intentional Targeting Test: A Necessary Alternative to the
Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Analyses in Property Rentals
Discrimination." Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 43.4 (2010): 491515. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 2 May 2012.
Blumrosen, Alfred. “Strangers in Paradise: Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and the Concept
of Employment Discrimination.” Michigan Law Review. 71.1 (1972): 59-110.
JSTOR. Web. 15 April 2012.
Crabtree, Sarah, Student author, and Daphnie Stock. "The 45th Anniversary of Title VII:
Where We Are, Where we’ve been, and Where We May Go." Hofstra Labor &
Employment Law Journal 27.2 (2010): 433-466. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W.
Wilson). Web. 2 May 2012.
Didech, Kate. “The Extension of Disparate Impact Theory to White Men: What The Civil
Rights Act of 1991 Plainly Does Not Mean.” Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and
Civil Rights. 10.1 (2004): 55-81. ProQuest Criminal Justice. Web. 15 April 2012.
Fein, Bruce. "A Court that Obeys the Law." National Review 41.18 (1989): 50-51.
Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 May 2012.
Gold, Michael Evan. “Disparate Impact is Not Unconstitutional.” Texas Journal on Civil
Liberties and Civil Rights 16.2 (2011): 171-87. ProQuest Criminal Justice. 15
April 2012
Goldstein, Barry, and Patrick O. Patterson. "Ricci V. DeStefano: Does it Herald an ‘Evil
Day,’ or does it Lack ‘Staying Power’?" The University of Memphis Law Review
40.4 (2010): 705-95. ProQuest Criminal Justice. Web.15 April 2012.
Conner 13
"Griggs V Duke Power Company." Supreme Court Cases: The Dynamic Court (19301999) (1999): N.PAG. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 May 2012.
Niedrich, Anastasia. "Removing Categorical Constraints on Equal Employment
Opportunities and Anti-Discrimination Protections." Michigan Journal of Gender &
Law 18.1 (2011): 25-112. ProQuest Criminal Justice. Web. 2 May 2012.
Perez, Thomas. “Protecting Equal Opportunity.” U.S. Department of Justice. 11 March
2011. Web. 2 May 2012.
Salisbury, Joyce E. and Andrew E. Kersten. "Discrimination in the United States, 19601990." Daily Life through History. ABC-CLIO, 2012. Web. 2 May 2012.
Zisk, Nancy L. "Failing the Test: How Ricci V. DeStefano Failed to Clarify Disparate
Impact and Disparate Treatment Law." Hamline Law Review 34.1 (2011): 27-50.
OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 2 May 2012.