Griggs Vs Duke Power Company Case Summary

The Supreme Court is perhaps most well known for the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. By declaring that segregation in schools was unconstitutional, Kevern Verney says a ‘direct reversal of the Plessy … ruling’1 58 years earlier was affected. It was Plessy which gave southern

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 case here at hand was argued October 5th of 1964. The issue was one that dealt with Ollie’s Barbecue and its owner Ollie McClung in Alabama and the refusal of black patrons coming inside to dine-in. Ollie’s only allowed take out to black customers, even though the majority of employees were black. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that was handed down in July, Congress along with Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach were arguing that a clear violation of Title II of the Act was being committed by McClung. This case was close in distinction and timing of the Heart of Atlanta Motel case brought before the Supreme Court, as they were argued at the same time. “Section 201 (a) of Title II commands that all persons shall be entitled to

After the Civil War, following the Compromise of 1877 and the end of Reconstruction, the protection for the rights of African American ended if there was any. Southern States had moved to impose a system of segregation on nearly all areas of life. New laws that required segregation that stirred “separate but equal” doctrine that disenfranchise African Americans for almost six decades. It is hard in this days and age to be able to imagine segregation as a law, but the remnants just change form and name. A petition file on June 7, 1892, in the supreme court Louisiana by a local shoemaker named Homer Plessy against Honorable judge John H. Ferguson. His filling set a test case to challenge Separate Car Act that prompt Plessy v. Ferguson case perhaps one of the most noticeable actions to nullify “separate but equal” doctrine.

Employers complained about hiring quotas and the necessity of employing minority contractors, but across-the-board, affirmative action in the workplace was accepted by both the voters and the Supreme Court. Affirmative action was soon extended to women as well as educational institutions. The Supreme Court prohibited excluding women and minorities from employment on the basis of artificial hurdles such as physical strength or intelligence tests when these did not directly reflect the demands of the job. The court's opinion implied that the only way to assure avoidance of charges of discrimination was for employers to hire workers and for schools to admit students in proportion to their racial and gender presence in the

The Brown case decision could not have happened prior to 1954 if these cases had not set a precedent for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment under the “equal protection” clause. In the case Plessy v. Fergguson (163 U.S. 537(1896)), this case was responsible for the “separate but equal” doctrine, where segregation began. In the case, Sweatt v. Painter (339 U.S. 629), African American law students fought for an equal opportunity education.

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

In Ricci v. DeStefano there were a group of firefighters who took a written exam for promotion in the New Haven, CT fire department. When the results were tallied, more white firefighters passed or did better on the exam than black firefighters, which would have led to a disproportionate number of white candidates getting promoted. As a result of this, the City of New Haven, CT Fire Department, threw the exam out and no one was promoted. This went to the Supreme Court and they found that by discarding the exams, the City of New Haven violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (website).

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

A long awaited a historical NAACP court case was won in 1954 after the Supreme Court made a ground making decision in the Brown vs. Board of Education verdict. A lawsuit was brought against the Board of Education which denied back student the ability to attend schools with whites. This court case overturned the previous decision of Plessy v. Ferguerson of 1896, and helped to defeat the notion that America could be “separate but equal”. As a result segregation was banned and deemed as illegal, providing African Americans with the ability to be provided the same educational advantages as their white counter part. Yet the laws remained restricted pertaining to public entities such as restaurants.

This case was not the beginning of desegregation but it is one of the more notable acts towards that end. Segregation is one of the biggest hurdles the people of the United States had to get through to be where we are today. Without a ruling such as this there would not be the amount of diversity as there is today or in our society in general.

According to the Legal Dictionary (2014), “The Wards Cove decision was severely criticized by Civil Rights leaders, who believed the Supreme Court had made disparate impact cases almost impossible to win” (p.1). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 was in effect. This act proposed that employees must have proof in showing that the employer committed a disparate impact crime. No longer would it allow the victims to argue against the company based on their own views. At the same time the owner must show evidence that there is a crime committed based on these findings. Title VII along with the Civil Rights Act would dismiss any further rulings on this matter. The Supreme Court has adjusted some of the compensation methods for the disparate impact theory. It is against the law for an employer to allow different standards, conditions, or terms of the job to their workers. This

Competence, not “who you know,” should be the basis for all decisions made in hiring, job assignments, and promotions in order to foster ability and merit as the primary characteristics of a bureaucratic organization.

From the interview with Ms. Lim, the managerial will rank their employees according to their relative level of performance. The employees will be call upon into the office by their own manager or even supervisor, and will be interviewed accordingly. Ranking is done on an annual basis during the annual planning cycle, which takes place worldwide during Quarter 1. There are three rank categories and a performance category for employees who are not ranked because they are not consistently demonstrating the performance expected of those in similar positions. The rank categories are: