Disparate Impact

Disparate Impact

Disparate Impact arises when an employer’s practices unintentionally excludes a protected class disproportionately (Player, Shoben and Lieberwitz, 1995). A “protected class” is a group of people, with common characteristics, which Congress has determined must be protected from inequality (“On-the-Job Discrimination: Gender Discrimination," 2004). This paper will analyze the landmark disparate impact case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424, 1971) from its beginning to its conclusion in the Supreme Court. Included will be the facts of the case and the issues detailed, as well as the history of the case from initial filing to final ruling.

Background

A class action suit was brought against Duke Power Company by thirteen of its black workers in the Dan River Stream Station located at Draper, North Carolina. Out of five departments, black employees were only hired into the Labor Department. These workers charged that they were being disqualified for job promotions and assignments based on the company’s policies requiring a high school diploma and passing two professionally prepared aptitude tests. The petitioners argued that white employees who were hired before the high school education requirement was implemented still received promotions and were scored satisfactorily, but their black counterparts did not receive the same "grandfather" exception. Also noted was the highest paid black made a lower wage than the lowest paid white employee in any of the other four departments.

The case elaborated on the previous requirements as well as the “current” policies. In 1955, Duke Power began requiring a high school diploma for first assignment to all departments except the Labor Department, which was manned by black workers, as well as for any transfers from the Coal Handling Department to any of the three remaining “inside” departments. The three “inside” departments were Operations, Maintenance, and Laboratory. On July 2, 1965, Title VII’s implementation date, Duke Power added that in addition to the high school diploma policy, employees had to pass two professionally prepared tests in order to be promoted or change departments. In September of the same year, the company allowed employees in the Labor and Coal Handling departments without a high school diploma, but who passed the two tests, to transfer to another “inside” department. The two tests used were the Wonderlic Personnel Test and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test. Neither of these tests measured the employee’s ability to learn a particular job, however the required scores the company used for hiring and transfers were a mirror of the national average for high school graduates.

Issues Under Dispute

The issues presented to the Middle District Court, and subsequently to the Supreme Court, were of discrimination. The lower courts had to address whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected employees against being required to have a high school diploma or passing standardized tests as means of denying employment and/or promotions. As quoted from the text Employment Discrimination Law: Cases and Materials, the lower courts had to decide whether it was lawful for an employer to require either the diploma or the tests if:

1) Neither showed to be extensively related to successful job performance

2) Both requirements functioned to disqualify black employees at a considerably higher rate than white employees

3) Only white employees formerly held the jobs as a past practice of preference given to white employees over black employees (Player, Shoben and Lieberwitz, 1995).

The Court’s Rulings and Reasoning

The Middle District Court Of North Carolina in Greensboro, North Carolina, dismissed the complaint, citing Duke Power’s past injustice of racial discrimination before the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 could not receive corrective action after the fact under the then-current Act. The District Court said that it found no intentional continuing discrimination. The petitioners appealed the case to the Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals decision partially affirmed and partially reversed the District Court’s decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed that there was no showing of a “discriminatory purpose” in the adoption of the diploma and test requirements, and that the policies were permitted under the Act since they were not shown to be job-related. It reversed the District Court’s decision that the lingering discrimination from prior employment practices was protected from corrective action, but concluded that there