Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
401 U.S. 424 Supreme Court 1971In … were unlawful under Title VII unless shown to be job-related. We granted the writ on these claims. 399 U.S. 926. The objective of Congress in the enactment of Title VII is plain from the language of the statute. It was to achieveequalityof employment opportunities and remove … other employees. Under the Act, practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent,cannot be maintained if … "freeze" the status quo of priordiscriminatory em…nt practices. … "whites register far better on the Company's alternative requirements" than Negroes. 420 F.2d 1225, 1239 n. 6. This consequence would appear to bedirectly traceable to race. … must have the means of articulation tomanifest … itself fairlyin … are Negroes, petitioners have long receivedinferior education in segregated schools, … to vote indirectly on account of race. Congress did not intend by Title VII, however, to guarantee a job to every person regardless of qualifications. In short, the Act does not command that any Page 401 U. S. 431 person be hired simply because he was formerly the subject of discrimination, or because he is a member of a minority group. Discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is preciselyand … What is required by Congress is the removal of artificialarbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment … seeker be taken into account. It has -- to resort again to the fable -- provided that the vessel in which the milk is proffered be one all seekers can use. The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is
