GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER COMPANY CASE REVIEW 3
Running head: GRIGGS V. DUKE POWER COMPANY CASE REVIEW 1
Griggs .V. Duke Power Company Case Review
Alondra Romero
Florida International University
Griggs .V. Duke Power Company Case Review
Summary of the Factors that led to the case
Griggs .V. Duke Power company case is an iconic one because it formed the basis of Supreme case defining what can be referred to as unfair discrimination. Dan rive plant, which was owned by Duke Power company, had put a policy in the 1950s that African American could be recruited in the company to work in only one department, labour department, because it had the lowest paid positions (Griggs et al. v. Duke Power Co., 1971). Later on the in 1955 the corporation came up with a new policy that for a prospective candidate to qualify for a higher paid job they must be a high school diploma holder as well as pass a subjective aptitude test. The new policy was the basis of Griggs suing Duke Power Company with an argument that the new policy was contentious (Griggs et al. v. Duke Power Co., 1971). He claimed that it would lead to more rejection of African American candidates applying for the job in favour of Whites and therefore the new policy was illegally discriminatory because it was not related to job success in any way.
Three factors were laid out by Chief Justice Burger as affecting equal employment legislation
Upon hearing the case judges of the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the policy was illegally discriminatory and unfair. In his written statement Chief Justice Burger laid out three factors that influence equal employment legislation. The first one is that it is not necessarily that discrimination is overt for it to be illegal. This means that it is not necessary for a complainant to demonstrate that the employer intentionally discriminated a job applicant. The complainant has got only to show that the discrimination occurred. Secondly, Justice Burger stated that if an employment practice has an unequal impact on a member of a protected class, it must be job-related. Lastly, the court placed the burden to prove that an employment practice is a job related to the shoulders of the employer. This is to say that in an occurrence of a court case related to discrimination it is the responsibility of the employer to gather evidence to prove that there was no discrimination in the recruitment process (Belton, 2014).
The relevance of the case to HRM
The court ruling on this case impacted Human Resource Management on a dimension of using in the pre-employment testing. Pre-employment test is a commonly used tool by HRM in the process of recruitment. The court introduces two terminologies, “disparate impact” and “business necessity”. HRMs must be cautious on the pre-test tool they use in the recruitment process because if the tool shows partiality, the organization can be sued by unsatisfied job applicants or its employees. If the tests employed has an unequal impact on a member of a protected class it must be job-related.
My opinion
From my point of view, I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court in this case of Griggs v Duke. The reason for this is that the U.S declaration of independence seeks to bring equality among all its citizens. If an organization is in America’s soil, it should comply with this constitutional obligation. The court ruling, therefore, promoted fairness and equality and protected African American against discrimination.
References
Griggs et al. v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court of the United States on March 8, 1971).
Belton, R. (2014). The Crusade for Equality in the Workplace: The Griggs v. Duke Power Story. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.