Case Study: Griggs V. Duke Power Company

Some employers use multiple tests and other selection procedures to hire applicants and to promote employees. Interviewing, job knowledge tests, integrity tests, cognitive tests, personality tests, medical examinations, credit checks, and criminal background checks are some examples of tests administered for selection decisions. The use of these tests can be extremely effective when determining who is the most qualified for the particular position, however it is deemed discriminatory if they are used to discriminate based on race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability or age.

In the Supreme Court case, Griggs v. Duke Power Company (Duke), it was decided that Duke used a selection process which had a disparate impact on the employment opportunities of members of a race, color, religion, sex, or national origin group. Disparate impact is sometimes confusing and tricky. In the case of the Albemarle Paper Company (Albemarle) v. Moody, proved just how tricky disparate impact is. Albemarle administered tests without validating them before they were administered because it was too expensive. However, Albemarle did attempt to prove their case through a private company before their court date. Subsequently, Albemarle were not able to
Duke Power Company and Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (Uniformed Guidelines) was introduced. The Uniform Guidelines provide the framework to properly administer tests and other selection procedures in the employment decision. The guidelines are designed to support Equal Employment Opportunity without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex, religion or national origin. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Justice and Department of Labor all have adopted the guidelines to provide a set of principles governing use of employee selection procedures.