Griggs v. Duke Power Company - Research Paper Example

Griggs v. Duke Power Company Case Summary In the Griggs v. Duke Power Company case, the bone of contention was the promotion and transfer policies adopted by the company. The case concerned these policies at its Dan River Steam Station. The company allowed incumbent who did not have a high school education to transfer from an outside job opportunity to an inside job opportunity by passing two tests; The Bennett Mechanical Aptitude Test, and Wonderlic Personnel Test that allegedly measures general verbal facility. The African American employees filed a class action suit in which they argued that these practices were a violation of Title VII. This is because neither possessing a high school education nor passing the tests was a necessity for successful performance on the jobs in question. In the suit, they argued that the practices were illegal since a higher proportion of the African Americans did not have high school educations. On its part, the company put forward the argument that the requirements were based on its judgment and that they would generally improve the general quality of the workforce, and that the company had no discriminatory intent in instituting these requirements. Further, the company argued that its lack of discriminatory intent was demonstrated by its efforts to assist uneducated employees by financing two thirds of the tuition cost for high school education, (Rue & Byars, 2008). The Court Ruling However, the Supreme Court made a ruling in favor of the African American employees, (Rue & Byars, 2008). Meaning of the Ruling The ruling meant that the Duke Power Company could not use the two tests as the criteria for transferring incumbent employees from an outside job to an inside job. Based on the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, businesses, including the Duke Power Company, should adhere to the several key provisions stipulated by Section 703. These provisions outline unlawful employment practices for businesses and companies. It is an unlawful practice for any employer to refuse or fail to hire or discharge any person, or otherwise to discriminate against any person with respect to his terms, privileges, compensation, or terms of employment, based on the person’s color, sex, race, religion, or national origin. It is also unlawful to segregate, limit, or classify employees or applicants for employment in any manner that would tend to deprive or deprive any person of employment opportunities, or affect his position as an employee adversely, due to the person’s color, sex, religion, race, or national origin, (Rue & Byars, 2008). According to Rue & Byars (2008), it is also unlawful for an employment agency to refuse or fail to refer for employment, or otherwise discriminate against any person based on his or her color or race, or to refer or classify for employment any person based on his color, race, sex, or religion. Also, a labor organization can not expel or exclude from its membership, or otherwise discriminate against any person on the basis of his color, race, sex, or religion. The organization can also not cause an employer to discriminate against any person. The labor organization can also not classify its membership or applicants in a way that is deemed discriminatory. Therefore, the provisions stipulate that an employer, a labor, organization, and a joint labor-management committee that controls apprenticeship or training, to discriminate against another person. This ruling, as well as the provisions listed above, has major implications on the Duke Power Company and other businesses in general. First, a violation of any of the provisions results in an unlawful employment practice. Such unlawful employment practices are quick to attract lawsuits. According to Hersh (1991), lawsuits are costly and time consuming, and many companies try to avoid them. Lawsuits also might be a stain to the company’s image and reputation. Therefore, the ruling would go a long way in ensuring that companies and businesses strictly adhere to the equal employment guidelines that are provided by the various Acts and laws in order to avoid lawsuits that could cost the company’s reputation and image. At the same time, the ruling means that companies and businesses would be able to practice equal employment opportunity measures in the workplace. This is in regard to recruitment, promotion, transfers, laying off, and termination of employment. This would mean that not one person would be discriminated against during any of these processes on the basis of his color, religion, race, religion, or national origin. This therefore presents a challenge to businesses to ensure that their human resource departments adhere to all the stipulations provided by law in order to create a diverse but healthy and cohesive workforce. Legal Precedent the Ruling Sets for Businesses This ruling established several key points that concern equal employment. First, the implications of employment practices, not merely the motivation or the intent of the employer, are thrust of Title VII in the sense that practices that discriminate against one group more than another or continue past patterns of discrimination are illegal regardless of the nondiscriminatory intent of the employer. Second, the disparate impact doctrine provides that when the plaintiff shows that an employment practice disproportionately excludes groups protected by Title VII, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that the standard reasonably relates to job performance. Third, the EEOC’s guidelines that allowed the use of only job-related tests are appropriate. Therefore, businesses have to address the two main areas of discrimination which are disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment is concerned with the intentional discrimination, and entails treating one class or employees differently than other employees. Disparate impact has to do with the unintentional discrimination and entails employment practices that are deemed to be neutral but adversely affect a protected class of people. This is what was used in the Griggs v. Duke Power Company case. The three key points derived from the case, as well as the two main areas of discrimination, set the legal precedent for businesses in such cases. Role of Federal Enforcement Agency Federal enforcement agencies ensure that organizations comply with regulation standards. While self-regulation is played a key role in corporate governance, government regulators enact rules and enforce them in order to provide a reference point for organizations. For example, the Acts discussed above are passed by the federal government, and enacted through the various government agencies. According to Michael et al (2004), enforcement is used to ensure that those businesses that violate the regulations do adhere to the regulatory standards. This can be in form of criminal sanctions, suspension, or prosecutions. Therefore, the role of federal enforcement agencies in compliance with regulation standards is extremely significant. References Michael, L. M., Healey, J. T. & Keating, E. K. (2004) The Role of Government in Corporate Governance. Regulatory Policy Program Report RPP-08 (2004). Cambridge, MA: Center for Business and Government, Harvard University. Rue, L. W. & Byars, L. L. (2008) Chapter Two: Equal Employment Opportunity: The Legal Environment. Human Resource Management, 9th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Hersch, J. (1991) Equal Employment Opportunity Law and Firm Profitability. The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 26, No. 1, Winter 1991, pp. 139-153. Read More