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 Tucker vs. Walgreen Company was a nationwide known class action case. It fell into the category of race discrimination. This cases was brought to the attention of the law by African Americans who were employed at this retail and pharmacy store. This pledged that they were being discriminated to by the following acts:failure to move up in positions (promotion), dieing them the opportunity to apply for assistant manager and manager, and being assigned to an undesirable store for an extended period of time compared to whites. They filed a class action lawsuit with the demand of compensatory and punitive damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Along with these demands, the plaintiffs desired class certification for those who have been previously affected by the defendant’s discriminatory acts as well as any who will suffer from them in the future.
Hamblett, M. (2004, August 26). 2nd Circuit: Impact of Employer Acts Grounds for Suit: Court rules on disparate impact theory of recovery. New York Law Journal. Retrieved April 4, 2005 from http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180422885
The company policy was implemented soon after the United States Congress passed the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the company installed this policy to keep the best jobs for white employees. This policy was a direct violation of the Title VII of the Civil Right Act of 1964, which impacted the way Duke Power handled new standards for hiring, promotion, and transfer promotion, and transfers. In order to work in positions outside of the labor department, Duke Power Company now required a high school diploma or scores on standardized IQ tests equal to those of the average high school graduate(Grigg’s). The new standard for hiring, promotions, and transfer was meant to provide a better workplace standard for all of the company. The thirteen african american employees of Duke Power Company did not feel this way, the employees lawyer Jack Greenberg argued against Duke Power Company policy changes in December 1970 by
Raytheon Company v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44; No. 02749. Argued October 8, 2003Decided December 2, 2003 on Disparate Treatment. We can define, Disparate Impact happens "when people are treated differently, with respect to the terms and conditions of employment because of their race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age or mental or physical disability."
David Dunlap, a 52-year old African American male with 25 year boilermaker experience, 15 years of which include foreman experience, brought suit under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination by the TVA after being looked over after interviewing for positions within the TVA. The district court agreed that “Dunlap had been subjected to discrimination under both disparate treatment and disparate impact analyses, concluding that TVA’s subjective hiring processes permitted racial bias against both Dunlap and other black applicants” (Walsh, 2010). The case was heard by the 6th District Court of Appeals and that court “affirmed the disparate treatment claim, reversed the disparate impact claim, and affirmed the district court’s award of damages and fees to Mr. Dunlap” (Walsh, ...
The size of an organization and applicant pool has a larger impact on determining disparate impact than actual discriminatory procedures (Jacobs et al. 457). For instance, there could have been such as small percentage of females who wanted to apply for the job that only a few were qualified for the position of the small pool. If 10 females applied and only 4 were qualified and were hired, while 54 out of 100 men who applied met the qualifications and were hired then this is evidence of disparate impact. A decision about 1 individual could determine if it’s a disparate impact case (GFB, 43). It would be unfair for the company to have to hire an additional woman if she did not meet the qualifications of job which can cause a liability to the company in the future, all for the sake of meeting the constraints of the 4/5ths
Griggs v. Duke Power is a pivotal case concerning employment discrimination. Duke Power, an electric company in the Carolinas, implemented specific education requirements and testing for new and existing employees. The requirements included a high school diploma and a passing score on two separate professionally prepared aptitude tests. The two required aptitude tests were the Wonderlic Personnel Test and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test. The test requirements went into effect on July 2, 1965 which coincided with the effective date of Title VII.
African American employees of the Dan River Steam Station of Duke Power Company in Draper, North Carolina, in a class action with the class defined as themselves and those (at that time) Negro employees who subsequently may be employed at the Dan River Steam Station and all Negroes who may hereafter seek employment at the station, appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing their complaint brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (SCOTUS) (Duke Power Company will be referred to sometimes as Duke or the company.) The plaintiffs challenge the validity of the company's promotion and transfer system, which involves the use of general intelligence and mechanical ability tests, alleging racial discrimination and denial
As a result, this paper reasons that the Fair-Start Defense based on race and gender is a faulty justification for affirmative action because it cannot be fairly applied in the United States of America today. However, affirmative action itself should be permitted to be used in case the state once again unfairly discriminates social groups.
In January 2011, The City of Kansas City, MO lost its second multi-million dollar employment discrimination lawsuit in a one-week period. The former city employees, Jordan Griffin and Coleen Low, were awarded $345,000 and $517,000 respectively by the jury. Griffin, a former Senior Analyst and Commissioner of Revenue, says she was given the nickname “White Chocolate” in the false belief she would favor minority hires. She also says she was harassed when she refused to participate in the biased-hiring process and was overlooked for an interview for the Commissioner of Revenue position on a permanent basis because it was already “pre-determined” that the position would be filled by an African American. When the then Senior Analyst Low spoke up on her colleague’s behalf, she says the city laid her off as well. The city’s, assistant attorney, said the city did nothing wrong and that the city was forced to layoff another 73 people that year due to the slump in the economy (Evans). Did Griffin and Low deserve the money they were compensated and does reverse discrimination exist?
(1) On May 17th, 1954, the Supreme Court made a decision that would mark a defining moment in the history of the United States. This decision declared “separate but equal” unconstitutional. It was ultimately unanimous, and occurred after a long, sought out campaign to convince all nine justices to overturn the “separate but equal” doctrine that had been sanctioned in the infamous 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case. The legal path paved in various aspects of racial discrimination in public life has been the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Section I states “no State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Schimmel, Stellman and Fischer 312) At one point in time, it was determined actions by public officials and employees are state actions because public schools are state institutions. This is where Plessy v. Ferguson established separate but equal facilities meet the clause of the amendment. Between the two major cases in 1896 and 1954, there have been a number of lawsuits challenging the separate but equal principle. This case being discussed as the first influential case in the history of education in the United States is Brown vs. Board of Education. Brown was not the only case to push for a change, but rather one of five lawsuits against school districts. Because of the successful lawsuits challenging the doctrine in graduate and professional schools, it was possible for these other cases to step forward. In this case, the court recognized what important function of state and local governments education had become. They realized how education is the foundation on which good citizenship lies. Rejecting Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court determined “separate but equal” he...
In Linda Brown’s case, the problem wasn’t a water fountain but a school. Linda was black third-grader living in Topeka, Kansas, caught right in the middle of racial discrimination. To get to her black elementary school each day, Linda had to trek a mile from her home through a railroad switch-yard, even though there was a white elementary school seven blocks away. Her father, Oliver Brown tried to enroll her in the white elementary but was rejected because of her race. After his daughters refusal into the school, Oliver reached out to McKinley Burnett, the head of Topeka’s branch of the NAACP. The NAACP jumped at the opportunity to help the Brown’s because they had long waited for a chance to challenge segregation in public schools.(Cozzens)
Weber occurred, which entailed a Louisiana plant that had employed few minorities in skilled positions. There was an agreement made amongst the employer and the union that fifty percent of the available training positions would be given to African American employees. The plan was developed as a temporary solution to lessen the racial imbalance. After being passed over for the program for several black employees who were less qualified, Brian Weber, a white employee, brought suit, alleging that the company 's affirmative action policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII, which forbids discrimination in the employment process based on race, states in part, "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for any employer ... to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training." However, since the program did not aim to prevent white advancement, it was not discriminatory. Many individuals harbor the same mindset as Weber, believing that a large percentage of white workers will be deprived of job opportunities if affirmative action is continued; that belief is incorrect. According to the U.S. Commerce Department in 2011, there were 2.6 million unemployed Blacks and 114 million employed White citizens. Therefore, even if every unemployed Black worker in
The evidence provided demonstrates that different bushfires do, in fact, result in varying social, economic and environmental impacts. This difference is linked to both the human and natural factors which help to determine the magnitude of the disaster.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Religious Discrimination as part of the Civil Rights Act is the subject of this term paper.