It was also proven that minorities did not have the same passing rates for the test as white people. The highest paying jobs in the labor department paid less than the lowest paying jobs in any other department at Duke Power. Duke Power Co. Duke Power Co displayed lack of EEO Compliance by having a neutral rule (high school Diploma) that disparately impacted a minority (Blacks) that had no direct relevance to the performance needed for the job. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went into effect, the Duke Power Company had a practice of only allowing Black men to work in the labor department. Ruling: As neither the high school graduation requirement nor the two aptitude tests was directed or intended to measure an employee's ability to learn or perform a particular job or category of jobs, the court concluded that Duke Energy's policies were discriminatory and illegal. .The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation. Duke Power (1971), the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding such employment practices violated Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Court Litigation, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Equal Opportunities (Jobs), Griggs v. Unanimous Decision: Justices Burger, Black, Douglas, Harlan, Stewart, White, Marshall, and Blackmun an employee practice must be shown to be job related if it. Key Questions: Did Duke Power Company's intradepartmental transfer policy, requiring a high school education and the achievement of minimum scores on two separate aptitude tests, violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? discrimination on the part of the employer does not have to be shown to be intentional 2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |