Willie Griggs V. Duke Power

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

The proof of discriminatory intent is not required and although the court concluded that TVA’s processes with interviewing had been manipulated to exclude African-American candidates in general, the court disagreed, citing the “lack of statistical proof demonstrating that a protected group was adversely affected thus establishing a “prima facie” case” (Walsh, 2010). Dunlap did not prove, within the evidence presented, that the procedures TVA used were practiced prior. Although the district court concluded that “TVA's interview process had been manipulated to exclude African American candidates” (Walsh, 2010), the court of appeals disagreed because it did not believe there was analytical data that blatantly prove how any protected group was impacted adversely. The court found that Dunlap can only challenge his specific interview processes and not an entire group.

On June 29, 2009, the last day of the United States Supreme Court’s 2008–09 term, the Court rendered the much anticipated decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 (2009). Ricci was quickly dubbed the “white firefighter’s case” by many, however, the case involved much more than the firefighters’ asserted right to a promotion.

Discrimination against race, gender, religion, or other social characteristics is occurring in all parts of the United States almost every day. Unfortunately, the U.S. has a history of extreme case of discrimination, which has evoked controversy and in worse cases, violence. To discourage any more of adverse discernment towards certain individuals, the Federal government has imposed legislation called affirmative action. According to At Issue: Affirmative Action, “Affirmative action is designed to promote access to opportunities in education, employment, housing, and government contracts among certain designated groups, such as women and minorities“ (At Issue). This law is necessary in today’s society in order to maintain equality and

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 the case of Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747 the court reversed the judgment and because of the Civil Rights Act 1964 which prohibited the discrimination based on race, therefore, equitable relief to achieve its purposes, including the ability to award seniority retroactively. Due to the title 7 and Civil Rights Act of 64 which prohibits hiring discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin as well as in the case of Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 44 (1974);same asMcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800 (1973); as well as Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 429-430 (1971), in addtion, an ordained that its policy of outlawing such discrimination should have the "highest

Thus short-run violations of the rule are justified to create a more just distribution of benefits. In order to make an effective policy, the supreme company should be able to predict, as best it can, how many minorities and women it would select over time, without adopting the policy of discrimination. These predictions would constitute the institution's affirmative action in terms of “goals” (Anderson, 2002).

Surprisingly, it was the first time I heard these two terms and after understanding what they mean it was easier for me to distinguish illegal discrimination. Additionally, now it’s easier for me to understand and explain when and why a situation is utilizing illegal discrimination. However, knowing these definitions will help me in the future by recognizing right away if I am being illegally discriminated. The second thing that I learned is the case, Griggs v. Duke Power. The case is about a black man who was not able to be promoted to a supervisory position, because the organization required a high school diploma, intelligence test, and aptitude test. At the time, most black men didn’t have a high school diploma. In my opinion, the case is significant because it highlights many important things about HR selection. For example, the case recognizes the concept of adverse impact, it concluded that tests administer to job candidates must demonstrate validity, and that intent of employer is irrelevant. Therefore, every time I remember this case I am able to understand adverse impact, that every test for a specific job must be valid, and that intent of employer is

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.

To prove a substantial relationship, a state actor must show that “the classification serves important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed are substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.” United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 516 (1996). To show a substantial relation, the justification for discrimination “must be genuine, not hypothesized . . . and it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.” Id. at 533.

When addressing legal issues of diversity in the modern day era, one main topic is brought to discussion, affirmative action. It was put into place by the federal government in the 1960’s and was initially developed to close the gap in relation to the privileged majority and the unprivileged minority in America (Aguirre Jr. & Martinez, 2003). While it has been controversial since its origin, it remains controversial as critics argue it tries to equalize the impact of so many

In the case of Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), the affirmative Action Plan was assigned to the workforce stating that the skilled worker would train to fill the positions of craft workers. In doing so, the production worker felt like the scales were not balanced, and their jobs are given to the black employees.

Many critics of affirmative action believe it has failed to achieve its stated goal of equal employment opportunity. A few even believe that it has done more harm than good. A review of the statistics, however, shows

President Kennedy was the originator to utilize the phrase affirmative action to direct employers to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants acquired employments and that employment applicants were treated fairly during employment without regarding their cred, national origin, color or race. The president orders additionally contributed to the development of the President’s Committee on Equal Staffing chances currently referred to as the Equal Staffing Opportunity Commission. Affirmative action procedures in the past focused on developing chances for African Americans in education and employment. This paper provides an analysis of five defenses in affirmative action procedures.