In the case of Griggs v. Duke Power, what was found to be illegal under Title VII?

In the case of Griggs v. Duke Power, what was found to be illegal under Title VII?

• A. Retention policies for all employee groups
• B. Job requirements not related to job performance
• C. Educational programs offered to employees
• D. Payment structures for employees

Answer: (B)

In the landmark case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the court ruled that job requirements that were not directly related to job performance violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case established the principle of "disparate impact," which occurs when a seemingly neutral employment practice disproportionately affects a protected group, even if there was no intent to discriminate. The court highlighted that the practices at Duke Power—specifically, requiring employees to possess a high school diploma and pass an intelligence test for certain positions—were not shown to be related to the actual job performance. The ruling emphasized that employment tests or qualifications that disproportionately screened out a certain group could be deemed discriminatory if they were not demonstrably related to the job's demands. This decision set a precedent for companies to ensure that their hiring and promotion criteria are valid and necessary for the performance of the job, thereby reinforcing equal opportunity in the workplace.

In the landmark case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the court ruled that job requirements that were not directly related to job performance violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case established the principle of "disparate impact," which occurs when a seemingly neutral employment practice disproportionately affects a protected group, even if there was no intent to discriminate.

The court highlighted that the practices at Duke Power—specifically, requiring employees to possess a high school diploma and pass an intelligence test for certain positions—were not shown to be related to the actual job performance. The ruling emphasized that employment tests or qualifications that disproportionately screened out a certain group could be deemed discriminatory if they were not demonstrably related to the job's demands. This decision set a precedent for companies to ensure that their hiring and promotion criteria are valid and necessary for the performance of the job, thereby reinforcing equal opportunity in the workplace.