Griggs Vs Duke Power Case Study

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the single most important piece of legislation that has helped to shape and define employment law rights in this country (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2001)". Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, age, gender, disability, religion and national origin. However, it was racial discrimination that was the moving force of the law that created a whirlwind of a variety of discriminations to be amended into Title VII. Title VII was a striving section of legislation, an effort which had never been tried which made the passage of the law an extremely uneasy task. This paper will discuss the evolution of Title VII as well as the impact Title VII has had in the workforce.

Many of us have worked in job environment that were less than ideal and probably thought about quitting our jobs on a daily basis. Do you ever wonder what it was like before the laws were written and implemented that prevented your boss from discriminating against you and other coworkers? Well I can without a doubt say that I would not have want a job before the 1964 Congress enacted the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Next a case relating to employment difficulties during the Black Civil rights movement was Griggs v. Duke Power Company in the year 1971. The ruling on this case by the Supreme Court was that Duke Power Company was « discriminating against black employees, » because their qualification for employment did « not pertain to applicants ' ability to perform the job,» but rather was influenced by other factors such as race, and therefore they were not hiring people in certain racial

Over the last several decades, workplace issues have become an area of controversy for most employers. This is because the regulations surrounding what practices are considered to be discriminatory have increased dramatically. To enforce these issues, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) is playing a central role in making employers follow these provisions of the law. A recent example of this occurred, with the case EEOC v. HCS Medical Staffing Inc.

The last decade has produced an explosion of racial employment discrimination lawsuits. These lawsuits have resulted in record-breaking settlements. By federally mandating every business to review the history, impact and proposed policy of Article VII these lawsuits may subside. Reviewing Title VII is a step corporate America must soon make or continue to loose much needed revenue. Our team will discuss the history of Title VII, the impact of Title VII in the workplace, who is and who is not covered under Title VII as well as propose policies that companies should have in place to avoid Title VII violations.

Disparate treatment is the unlawful treatment of individuals that violates Title VII rights. The Different treatment of a plaintiff relies on direct, comparative, and circumstantial evidence to meet their burden of persuasion (Roberts, 2010). When individuals complain, they have been treated differently due to their protected class. They are claiming the organization has discriminated against them. For instance, this employee may state the firm only hires males at this facility. Upon investigation, the employer learns that the ratio of workers who are men is greater than women. At this point, the company may explain why the reason for hiring males is higher since women cannot perform these tasks as it may affect their well-being. Nevertheless,

Federal (Title VII) and State legislation prohibit intentional discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and prohibit both “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” discrimination.

During the 1900’s, it was hard for a black to get a good paying job, male or female. The NAACP would hold and support multiple court cases over the years in the pursuit of getting better jobs for the black populace of america. One of these court cases was 1970’s Griggs v. Duke Power co. (link to the NAACP LDF article) Six years after congress passed Title VII of the civil rights act, making it illegal for companies and business to segregate and discriminate based on race, After Title Seven of the civil rights act was written, Duke power had to change the way they hired and worked their employees. Instead of purposely putting blacks that they hired into the labor department, they made requirements for Hiring, promotions and transfers. In order to be hired by Duke Power co., one had to have a High-School graduate diploma, scores on an IQ test equal to that of a normal High-School graduate. These changes were discrete discrimination against blacks, considering the quality of schools for blacks and how difficult it was for a black to get an education. This discrimination was noticed by NAACP president and director/counselor of the legal defence and educational fund Jack Greenberg, who argued in favor of the African American employees at Duke power co. In a surprising decision, the court ruled against Duke Power co. They stated that Title VII protects from both open discrimination AND acts that are fair in writing but discriminatory in practice. Title seven was meant to force companies to measure the person's ability to do the job and not the person on paper. Among many court cases that the NAACP participated in, this case was the breaking point for blacks in the

Case Summary: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) involved a white Michigan resident named Barbara Grutter and the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter was frustrated by her rejection from the Law School, claiming that the University’s decision was due to a discriminatory admission policy which sought to enroll greater amounts of underrepresented minority students. Grutter believed that white candidates possessed a disadvantage due to this policy and she sued the university. According to Grutter, race was the “predominate factor” in selecting applicants instead of academics. She argued that the policy was unconstitutional and that it violated her 14th Amendment rights.

In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.

The Civil Rights act of 1964 along with Title VII gives employees the option to sue business owners based on color, race, sexual orientation, and religion. This act, rules on the fact, that individuals can take action if a discrimination or harassment issues happens at the employer’s workplace. It expands Civil Rights statues to provide more protection against people who are victimized due to discrimination. It sets the guidelines for job related issues due to disparate impact or treatment issues. However, this act does not assure that everyone who faces discrimination will be employed because frankly he is a minority. If it is felt that there is a possibility of

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, EEOC laws are enforced. EEOC laws give citizens the ability to find a job without being discriminated upon race, religion, origin, or sex. There are many laws that have stemmed from this Civil Rights Act. I think that these laws have established a well-rounded society.

In the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), the company chose to set employment standards in which the

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws have helped shape the workforce today and they have greatly contributed to the introduction of diversity in the working environment. No longer are people rejected of employment based on their race, gender, age, or disability. The labor force has increased from 62 million people in 1950 to over 159 million people in the labor force today (Toolsi). The passing of the EEO laws proved to be a great advancement in the diversity of the workforce and treatment of employees, but it was a tremendous battle to get where we are today. Before the passing of these laws, unequal treatment was normal and discrimination was common among the majority of employers. This made acquiring employment difficult and caused many people to be unemployed. Three Equal Employment Opportunity laws that helped diminish these discriminatory practices were Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. For each law, I will describe what it enforces and explain the actions that happened in society and the workplace that made these laws necessary. I will discuss important political figures that contributed to the passing of these laws. Lastly, I will examine how each law has improved human resources and has led to better management of employees overall.

While equal rights and equal pay legislation made it illegal to discriminate “based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin“ (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011b, p. 1), the number of workplace discrimination cases continue to rise and is costing employers more than $319 million in 2010, not counting litigation (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2011a). Many employers have extensive human resource organizations with a sophisticated grasp on the implications of equal rights legislation on employers, that employ professionals, like I/O psychologists and attorneys, to establish fair policies and employment practices, and decrease an employer’s risk of litigation (Aamodt, 2010). In fact, employers often perform statistical analysis of employment practices to understand whether the practice could have an adverse impact against members of a protected class. For example, testing is a practice employers use for employee selection in the hiring process; even when an employment test is determined to be reliable, valid, and cost-efficient, care is taken to assure testing predicts performance equally well for all applications (Aamodt, 2010). Because governments and corporations have a fiduciary duty to citizens and shareholders, employers should continue to care about the issue of adverse impact, but more importantly, both government and corporations have a civil responsibility to treat the members of society fairly, because societal