Imagine applying for a better-paying job at the company where you’ve worked for years. You have the experience. You know the work. Your supervisors know you’re capable.

Then, suddenly, the company tells you that before you can even be considered, you must have a high school diploma and pass an intelligence test.

At first glance, that might sound reasonable.

But what if those requirements have little to do with the actual job?

And what if they end up excluding one group of workers far more than another?

That was the question the United States Supreme Court faced in one of the most important employment discrimination cases in American history—Griggs v. Duke Power Company.

Fact Checklist

• ✅ Case: Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
• ✅ Decided unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 8, 1971.
• ✅ Duke Power required a high school diploma and passing scores on two aptitude tests for many higher-paying jobs.
• ✅ The company failed to demonstrate that the diploma requirement or intelligence tests were related to successful job performance.
• ✅ The lawsuit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• ✅ The Supreme Court held that employment practices with a disparate impact on protected groups violate Title VII unless justified by business necessity.
• ✅ The Court emphasized that Congress intended to remove artificial and unnecessary barriers to employment.
• ✅ Griggs established the modern legal doctrine of disparate impact, which remains a cornerstone of federal employment discrimination law.

————————————————————————————————————

In the late 1960s, Duke Power operated a steam plant in North Carolina. After Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the company ended its openly segregated employment policies.

But many Black employees noticed something had not really changed.

The higher-paying jobs were still largely out of reach.

Why?

Because the company introduced new requirements. Employees seeking promotions had to possess a high school diploma and pass two standardized aptitude tests.

On paper, the rules applied equally to everyone.

But in reality, they did not.

Many Black workers had grown up during an era of legally segregated schools and unequal educational opportunities throughout the South. Because of those historic inequalities, fewer Black employees held high school diplomas.

The intelligence tests created another hurdle.

Even more important, Duke Power could not prove that either the diploma requirement or the tests actually measured the skills needed to perform the jobs successfully.

A group of Black employees decided to challenge the policy under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that the company’s new rules continued to discriminate, even if they appeared neutral.

The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court.

In 1971, the Court issued a unanimous decision in favor of the employees.

Chief Justice Warren Burger explained that Title VII protects workers from more than just intentional discrimination.

It also prohibits employment practices that appear neutral but disproportionately harm a protected group when those practices are not necessary to perform the job.

The Court ruled that employers cannot rely on diploma requirements, intelligence tests, or other screening tools unless they can demonstrate those requirements are directly related to successful job performance and are justified by a legitimate business necessity.

That decision created what we now know as the disparate impact doctrine.

In simple terms, the law recognizes that discrimination is not always obvious.

Sometimes the greatest barriers are rules that seem fair on the surface but unfairly exclude one group in practice.

Here’s an easy way to think about it.

Imagine your high school announced that every student had to run a mile in under six minutes to receive a diploma.

Now ask yourself:

What does running have to do with learning algebra, history, literature, or chemistry?

If that requirement disproportionately prevented one group of students from graduating—and had nothing to do with education—it would be an unnecessary barrier.

The Supreme Court said employment rules should be viewed the same way.

If a requirement has little connection to the actual work, yet disproportionately excludes qualified applicants, it may violate federal civil rights law.

More than fifty years later, Griggs v. Duke Power Company remains one of the most influential civil rights decisions in American history.

Its legacy reaches far beyond one power plant in North Carolina.

It continues to shape how employers design hiring exams, educational requirements, promotion standards, and employment policies across the United States.

The case stands for a simple but powerful principle:

Equal opportunity means more than treating everyone the same on paper. It also means removing unnecessary barriers that prevent qualified people from having a fair chance to succeed.