You’ve probably sat through a weirdly specific job assessment or wondered why a company requires a degree for a role that basically just involves using Excel. You can thank (or blame) Willie Griggs for the fact that those tests have to actually relate to the job. In 1971, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Griggs v Duke Power Company that fundamentally rewired how Americans get hired. It wasn't just a legal win; it was a total vibe shift for the corporate world. Honestly, before this case, companies could pretty much gatekeep jobs using whatever hurdles they wanted, as long as they didn't explicitly say "no minorities allowed."
It started at the Dan River Station, a power plant in Draper, North Carolina. Duke Power had a very specific hierarchy. They had five departments. The "Labor" department was where all the Black employees worked, and it paid the least. The other four—higher-paying, more technical—were for white employees only. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, Duke Power couldn't legally keep that "whites-only" rule anymore. So, they got creative. They added new requirements: a high school diploma and a passing score on two standardized aptitude tests (the Wonderlic Personnel Test and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test).
Here is the kicker. Neither the diploma nor the tests had anything to do with measuring whether someone could actually handle the work in the coal-handling or maintenance departments. In fact, many white employees who were already doing those jobs successfully didn't have diplomas and hadn't taken the tests.
The Birth of "Disparate Impact"
The legal team representing Willie Griggs and twelve other Black employees, led by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, argued that these requirements were basically just a "keep out" sign with better branding. They weren't necessarily saying Duke Power was being "evil" on purpose—though the timing was suspicious—but rather that the result was discriminatory. This is what lawyers call "disparate impact." It’s a fancy way of saying that even if a rule looks neutral on the surface, if it hits one group harder than another and isn't actually necessary for the job, it’s illegal.
The lower courts actually disagreed at first. They thought that as long as the company didn't intend to discriminate, the tests were fine. But the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Warren Burger, didn't buy that. Burger famously wrote that "Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the abstract." He basically said the law looks at the consequences of the action, not just the intent. If the test "freezes" the status quo of prior discrimination, it has to go.
Why the Wonderlic Test Failed the Vibe Check
The court looked at the stats. In North Carolina at the time, 34% of white males had high school diplomas compared to only 12% of Black males. On the tests, 58% of whites passed, while only 6% of Black applicants did. Because these hurdles weren't "demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance," they were deemed discriminatory under Title VII.
It was a massive shift. Suddenly, the burden of proof moved from the employee to the employer. If your hiring process has a lopsided result, you—the boss—have to prove that your "diploma requirement" or "math test" is actually a "business necessity."
Business Necessity and Job Relatedness
This created a whole new industry: Industrial-Organizational (I-O) Psychology. Companies couldn't just pick a random IQ test off the shelf anymore. They had to conduct "job analyses." You’ve seen this if you’ve ever looked at a modern job description that lists "essential functions."
If a company wants to require a physical fitness test for a warehouse job, they have to prove that the weight being lifted in the test matches what workers actually lift on the floor. If they require a Master’s degree for a clerical role, and that requirement filters out a specific protected group, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) might come knocking. They’ll ask for the data. They want to see the correlation between the degree and the performance.
The Lasting Legacy (and the Loopholes)
The impact of Griggs v Duke Power Company hasn't stayed static. In the late 80s, the conservative-leaning court tried to walk it back in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, making it harder for workers to sue. But Congress wasn't having it. They passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 specifically to codify the "Griggs" standard into actual statutory law. It basically told the courts, "No, we meant what we said in '71."
Today, we see this playing out in the world of Al and hiring algorithms. When a company uses an Al tool to screen resumes, and that Al starts favoring certain zip codes or schools that happen to be predominantly white or wealthy, that’s a "Griggs" problem. The tech is new, but the legal DNA is over fifty years old.
✨ Don't miss: Anderson-Daniels Funeral Home: What Most People Get Wrong About Planning a Service
It’s not just about race, either. The principles from this case have been used to challenge requirements that discriminate based on gender (like height and weight requirements for police officers) or age. If a requirement doesn't help you do the job better, why is it there? That's the core question Willie Griggs forced the American legal system to answer.
What You Should Do Now
If you’re a business owner, a hiring manager, or even just someone looking for work, the "Griggs" standard is your best friend or your biggest liability.
- Audit Your Requirements: Look at your current job postings. Do you actually need a four-year degree for that entry-level marketing role? If your data shows that people without degrees perform just as well, that requirement is a legal landmine.
- Validation Studies: If you use pre-employment testing (like personality tests or cognitive assessments), make sure the vendor has "validation studies" that comply with the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. You need to be able to show that the test predicts job success.
- The Four-Fifths Rule: Use this quick check. Calculate the hiring rate for the group with the highest rate. Now, calculate it for other groups. If the rate for a minority group is less than 80% (four-fifths) of the highest group's rate, you likely have "adverse impact." You need to investigate why and if those barriers are truly necessary.
- Document Everything: When you decide to keep a requirement that has a disparate impact, document the "business necessity" clearly. What specific task does this requirement address? What happens to the business if this requirement is removed?
The ghost of Griggs v Duke Power Company is in every HR office in the country. It’s the reason why "meritocracy" has to be backed up by data, not just "gut feelings" or traditional gatekeeping. Willie Griggs didn't just want a job; he wanted the rules to make sense. Fifty years later, we’re still trying to make sure they do.
Next Steps for Implementation:
- Conduct a Job Analysis: For your three most common roles, list the daily tasks and link them directly to the skills or credentials you require.
- Review Testing Vendors: Contact your HR tech providers and ask for their most recent Adverse Impact Report to ensure their algorithms aren't creating unintentional bias.
- Broaden Sourcing: If your "degree requirement" is creating a lopsided funnel, consider "skills-based hiring" models where you test for specific competencies rather than general credentials.