Document: 401 U.S. 424 91 S.Ct. 849 28 L.Ed.2d 158 Willie S. GRIGGS et al., Petitioners,v.DUKE POWER COMPANY. No. 124. Argued Dec. 14, 1970. Decided March 8, 1971. Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioners. George W. Ferguson, Jr., respondent. Lawrence M. Cohen the Chamber of Commerce United States, as amicus curiae. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We granted writ in this case to resolve question whether an employer is prohibited by Civil Rights Act 1964, Title VII, from requiring a high school education or passing standardized general intelligence test condition employment transfer jobs when (a) neither standard shown be significantly related successful job performance, (b) both requirements operate disqualify Negroes at substantially higher rate than white applicants, and (c) formerly had been filled only employees part longstanding practice giving preference whites.1 2 Congress provided, VII class actions enforcement provisions proceeding was brought group incumbent Negro against Duke Power Company. All petitioners are employed Company's Dan River Steam Station, power generating facility located Draper, North Carolina. At time action instituted, Company 95 14 whom were Negroes; 13 these here. 3 The District Court found that prior July 2, 1965, effective date openly discriminated on basis race hiring assigning its plant. plant organized into five operating departments: (1) Labor, (2) Coal Handling, (3) Operations, (4) Maintenance, (5) Laboratory Test. Labor Department where highest paying paid less lowest other four 'operating' departments which whites employed.2 Promotions normally made within each department seniority. Transferees usually began position. 4 In 1955 instituted policy initial assignment any except Handling 'inside' (Operations, Laboratory). When abandoned restricting completion also prerequisite department. From requirement trial, however, hired before continued perform satisfactorily achieve promotions departments. Findings score not challenged. 5 added further new became effective. To qualify placement but it become necessary register satisfactory scores two professionally prepared aptitude tests, well have education. Completion alone render eligible desirable excluded if requirement. September 1965 permit who lacked tests—the Wonderlic Personnel Test, purports measure intelligence, Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Neither directed intended ability learn particular category jobs. requisite used approximated national median graduates.3 6 while previously followed overt racial discrimination period Act, such conduct ceased. concluded prospective and, consequently, impact inequities beyond reach corrective authorized Act. 7 Appeals confronted with first impression, we, concerning meaning VII. After careful analysis majority court subjective employer's intent should govern, particularly close case, there no showing discriminatory purpose adoption diploma requirements. On basis, violation 8 reversed part, rejecting holding residual arising practices insulated remedial action.4 noted, correct conclusion invidious standards applied fairly alike. It held that, absence purpose, use permitted so doing, rejected claim because operated ineligible markedly disproportionate number Negroes, they unlawful under unless related.5 claims. 399 926, 90 2238, 26 791. 9 objective enactment plain language statute. equality opportunities remove barriers past favor identifiable over employees. Under practices, procedures, tests neutral their face, even terms intent, cannot maintained 'freeze' status quo practices. 10 Appeals' opinion, partial dissent, agreed record present 'whites far better alternative requirements' Negroes.6 420 F.2d 1225, 1239 n. 6. This consequence would appear directly traceable race. Basic must means articulation manifest itself testing process. Because long received inferior segregated schools expressly recognized differences Gaston County v. 395 285, 89 1720, 23 309 (1969). There, Carolina, barred institution literacy voter registration ground abridge right vote indirectly account did intend guarantee every person regardless qualifications. short, does command simply he subject discrimination, member minority group. Discriminatory group, majority, precisely what has proscribed. What required removal artificial, arbitrary, unnecessary invidiously discriminate impermissible classification. 11 now provided criteria promotion may provide opportunity merely sense fabled offer milk stork fox. contrary, posture job-seeker taken account. has—to resort again fable—provided vessel proffered one all seekers can use. proscribes fair form, operation. touchstone business necessity. If operates exclude prohibited. 12 us, nor bear demonstrable relationship performance used. Both adopted, without meaningful study job-performance ability. Rather, vice president testified, judgment generally improve overall quality work force. evidence, shows completed make progress used.7 able meet thus suggests possibility needed limited preserving avowed advancement context take capability next succeeding position future might utilized upon longrange fulfill genuine need. showing. adopted 'intention employees.' F.2d, 1232. do suggest either erred examining intent; good redeem procedures mechanisms 'built-in headwinds' groups unrelated measuring capability. 15 lack suggested special efforts help undereducated through financing two-thirds cost tuition training. But thrust consequences motivation. More placed burden given question. 16 facts demonstrate inadequacy broad devices infirmity using diplomas degrees fixed measures History examples men women rendered highly conventional badges accomplishment certificates, diplomas, degrees. Diplomas useful servants, mandated commonsense proposition masters reality. 17 contends specifically § 703(h) Act.8 That section authorizes 'any developed test' 'designed, * *.' (Emphasis added.) 18 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, having responsibility, issued guidelines interpreting job-related tests.9 administrative interpretation enforcing agency entitled great deference. See, e.g., States City Chicago, 400 18, 27 (1970); Udall Tallman, 380 1, 85 792, 616 (1965); Reactor Development Co. Electricians, 367 396, 81 1529, 924 (1961). Since legislative history support Commission's construction, affords reason treat expressing will Congress. 19 Section contained House version Senate during extended debate. For period, debate revolved around claims bill proposed prohibit force employers hire unqualified persons discrimination.10 Proponents sought throughout assure critics effect tests. Senators Case Jersey Clark Pennsylvania, comanagers floor, memorandum explaining 'expressly protects insist applicant, white, applicable Indeed, very title promote qualifications, rather color.' 110 Cong.Rec. 7247.11 Despite assurances, Senator Tower Texas introduced amendment authorizing 'professionally tests.' opposed because, written, give test, 'whether not, designed. Discrimination could actually exist guise compliance statute.' 13504 (remarks Sen. Case). 20 defeated days later offered substitute verbatim provision 703(h). Speaking supporters Humphrey, vigorously amendment, endorsed stating: 'Senators sides aisle deeply interested examined text accord title.' 13724. then adopted.12 sum relevant inescapable EEOC's construction require comports congressional intent. 21 Nothing precludes procedures; obviously useful. forbidden controlling demonstrably reasonable performance. commanded qualified preferred origins. Far disparaging qualifications such, factor, race, religion, nationality, sex irrelevant. abstract. 22 is, portion appealed from, reversed. BRENNAN took consideration decision case. provides: 'Sec. 703. shall employer— '(2) limit, segregate, classify his way deprive tend individual otherwise adversely affect employee, individual's color, sex, origin. '(h) Notwithstanding title, act results administration designed, *' 78 Stat. 255, 42 U.S.C. 2000e—2. A assigned August 1966, months after charges filed Commission. graduate begun 1953, promoted Department. more stringent requirement, since screen out approximately half graduates. ruled entrance those requirements, contemporaneously never them. seniority rights measured plantwide, departmental, basis. However, denied relief equivalent educational One disagreed aspect decision, maintaining, Court, prohibits racially exclusionary fashion skills abilities 1960 census statistics show 34% males school, 12% done so. Bureau Census, Census Population: 1960, Vol. Characteristics Population, pt. 35, Table 47. Similarly, respect EEOC battery including instant resulted 58% compared 6% blacks. Decision EEOC, CCH Empl.Prac. Guide, 17,304.53 (Dec. 1966). See 70—552, 6139 (Feb. 19, 1970). example, between November percentage graduates nearly identical nongraduates entire applies applicability Guidelines Testing Procedures, 24, provide: 'The Commission accordingly interprets mean knowledge applicant seeks, chance applicant's fact organization claiming expertise preparation more, justify VII.' elaborated Employee Selection 29 CFR 1607, 35 Fed.Reg. 12333 (Aug. These demand available 'data demonstrating predictive correlated important elements behavior comprise candidates being evaluated.' Id., 1607.4(c). discussion prompted hearing examiner Illinois Fair Myart Motorola (The reprinted 5662.) performed justified needs feared produce similar result. remarks Ervin, 5614—5616; Smathers, id., 5999—6000; Holland, 7012—7013; Hill, 8447; Tower, 9024; Talmadge, 9025—9026; Fulbright, 9599—9600; Ellender, 9600. finding related, relied quotation earlier Clark-Case interpretative addressed constitutionality said memorandum: 'There abandon bona fide qualification where, background education, members some groups. An set likes, determine applicants hire, assign, performance.' 7213. nothing stated conflicts dealing testing, 7247 (quoted above), explained 'applicable qualifications' permissible assured Certainly meant, light subsequent prevents fit job. Tower's original 'if seeking employer, designed predict suitable trainable enterprise involved 13492. indicates aim certain permitted. opposition based loose wording proponents susceptible misinterpretation. final acceptable sides, hardly relation first.

Category: 1