Case: Griggs V. Duke Power

Words: 390

Pages: 2

The United States Supreme Court heard the Griggs v. Duke Power Co in December 1970. This particular case involved employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory. The court decided the case in March of 1971.

Preceding the passage of the Civil Rights Act, Duke had a policy of segregating employees based on their race. Historically, African-Americans were only allowed to work as laborers at the Dan River Plant in Draper North Carolina. Laborers were the lowest-paying positions at the facility. After the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, Duke updated the policy pertaining to the case by mandating that most employees have either a high school diploma or a minimum IQ for all positions other than laborers. Duke Power never

Show More

Griggs Vs Duke Power

Assignment 3 March 7, 2024. Griggs. V. Duke Power Co. highly impacted human resource management. The case was brought to the court system because Duke Power Co. was requiring a certain level of education and certain standardized tests, which violated the rights of potential employees. Ultimately it was found that this case specifically affected African American employees and potential employees, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The direct ways in which the case affected human resources…

Words 466 - Pages 2

Griggs Vs Duke Power Company Summary

Resotko 11/23/15 (Griggs v. Duke Power Company) I. Facts of the Case Willie Griggs and several other African- American employees filed a class action lawsuit against Duke Energy. Griggs claims that Duke’s new employment policy requiring aptitude tests and a high school diploma violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Duke’s senior level management maintained the tests and educational requirement were intended to produce a generally improved workforce. Griggs and the employees of…

Words 529 - Pages 3

Chapter 1 Essay

employees from employees. If employees can be socialized to act safely and protect company assets, security and loss prevention strate- gies are enhanced further. Griggs v. Duke Power (1971). In 1968, several employees of the Duke Power Company in North Carolina were given a pencil-and-paper aptitude test for manual labor. Willie Griggs and twelve other black workers sued their employer with the charge of job discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Their contention was that the pencil-and-paper…

Words 638 - Pages 3

Civil Rights Law Case Study

In this case, it was declared that title VII not only prohibited overt discrimination and protected against practices that seem to be fair on the surface but also in reality was discriminate. Such as employment tests administered in such a way that it prohibits one nationality or group of people from participation. I ever in this case the company administer the tests that normally disproportionately ensure that a minimal…

Words 1626 - Pages 7

Wards Cove Packing Co. V. Atonio Case Analysis

rulings, was designed to “amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to strengthen and improve Federal civil rights laws, to provide for damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination, to clarify provisions regarding disparate impact actions, and for other purposes.” (S. 1745, 102nd Cong.) Essentially, it targeted policy in employment discrimination cases and “provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the…

Words 1418 - Pages 6

Task 1 Human Resources Memo Essay examples

a hostile environment. In order to justify a claim of constructive discharge, it is common for the former employee to prove that he or her was subject to sexually harassment or discrimination based on sex, religion, age, or national origin. In this case, the former employee is making a claim that discrimination occurred based on religion, due to the enforcement of the new production schedule. The new production schedule required all employees to work on alternating weekends, which includes holy days…

Words 880 - Pages 4

Definition Of Human Resource Management

sexual preferenece are not cover) Know what a prima facie case is and how it is created, disparate (or adverse) treatment and disparate (or adverse) impact (pp 69 & 72-74; notes on slide 4). Intentional vs unintentional, treatment 4 steps, 80 % rule Know how an employer demonstrates "job relatedness" and have a general familiarity with 4 key court cases: Griggs v. Duke Power, Albemarle Paper v. Moody, Connecticut v. Teal, Watson v. Fort Worth Bank (text pp 74-76; slide 5) Know sexual harassment:…

Words 808 - Pages 4

Synthesis: Corporation and Partnership Act Law Essay

Corporation Filing the Articles of Incorporation( Know those 4) Identifies name of corporation Name of incorporators Authorized of stock Duration of existence Does NOT list directors or officers hired after corp is formed Financial Structure Debt v. Equity instrument Debt: Bond Pays back principle + interest Equity: Common Stock Preferred Stock If dividends are paid, preferred stock gets them first Stock dividends and stock splits Does not increase net worth Number of shares you own go…

Words 3238 - Pages 13

Human Resources Task 1 Essay

day or two at will for whatever reason. The recommendation would be to allow this to go to court and based on the following court cases, Kyds would have substantial options for defending against a constructive discharge case. Zedeck v. Target and Ellerth/Faragher decisions provide the best defense examples, while Wilson v. Monarch Paper and Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders provide insight on what happens when situations go to far and the company is found at fault. This can be broken down into…

Words 2072 - Pages 9

United States V. Arizona Essay

United States v. Arizona: The Support Our Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods Act is Preempted and Discriminatory Melissa Goolsarran Table of Contents I. Introduction 1 II. Perspective: Immigration, Discrimination, and Limitations on State Laws 3 III. Background: United States v. Arizona 9 A. S.B. 1070 and the Legislature’s Justification 10 B. The Decision: United States v. Arizona 18 IV. Analysis: S.B. 1070 is Preempted by Federal Immigration Law and Also Discriminatory 23 A. The…

Words 14313 - Pages 58