You’ve probably applied for a job and wondered why the requirements seem so specific. Maybe you’ve seen a "high school diploma required" or a "must pass this personality test" sticker on an application and thought nothing of it. But there was a time in America when those exact requirements weren't just about finding the best worker. They were a wall.
Griggs v. Duke Power is the reason that wall was torn down.
Honestly, if you work in HR or you’ve ever felt like a job requirement was totally unrelated to the actual work, you owe a debt to thirteen guys from North Carolina. This wasn't just a legal spat. It was a fight over what "merit" actually means. Basically, it changed the rules for every boss in the country.
✨ Don't miss: 1 USD to GYD: Why the Guyana Exchange Rate Is Doing Something Strange
What Actually Happened at the Dan River Steam Station?
The whole thing started at a power plant in Draper, North Carolina. Duke Power Company had a system. It wasn't a secret system; it was just how things were. They had five departments: Labor, Maintenence, Operations, Test and Efficiency, and Laboratory.
If you were Black, you worked in Labor. Period.
The pay was the first clue. Even the highest-paid job in the Labor department paid less than the lowest-paid job in any of the other four "white" departments. Then 1964 happened. The Civil Rights Act passed, and suddenly, "Whites Only" wasn't a legal option anymore.
But Duke Power didn't just open the doors. They changed the gate.
They added two new rules for anyone wanting to move out of the Labor department: you needed a high school diploma, and you had to pass two aptitude tests—the Wonderlic Personnel Test and the Bennett Mechanical Comprehension Test.
Here’s the kicker: the company didn't actually check if these tests helped people do the job better. In fact, white employees who had been there for years without diplomas were doing just fine in those "higher" jobs.
The Lawsuit That Flipped the Script
Willie Griggs and twelve other Black employees weren't having it. They sued. They argued that because of the crappy, segregated schooling available to Black people in North Carolina at the time, fewer of them had diplomas or could pass these specific "general intelligence" tests.
At first, they lost.
The lower courts basically said, "Hey, Duke Power isn't trying to be racist. They just want smart workers. The tests are the same for everyone." This is what lawyers call "neutral on its face."
But when it reached the Supreme Court in 1971, Chief Justice Warren Burger and a unanimous court saw it differently. They realized that if you use a "neutral" test that wipes out one group of people more than another, and that test has nothing to do with the actual job, it’s still discrimination.
Disparate Impact: The Term You Need to Know
This case birthed a huge legal concept: Disparate Impact.
Most people think discrimination has to be intentional. Like, a boss saying "I won't hire you because of X." That’s disparate treatment. But Griggs proved that "intent" doesn't matter as much as "consequences."
Justice Burger used a famous analogy about a fable involving a stork and a fox. If you offer a fox and a stork milk in a flat dish, the stork can't drink it because of its long beak. The "offer" is the same, but the "vessel" makes it impossible for the stork to participate.
Why the "Business Necessity" Rule Matters
The Court didn't say you can't use tests. They said if your test has a bad "impact" on a protected group, you—the employer—have to prove it's a business necessity.
- Job Relatedness: Does the test actually predict if someone can fix a boiler or manage a team?
- The Status Quo: Does the test just "freeze" the effects of past discrimination?
- Alternative Methods: Is there a way to find good workers that doesn't exclude an entire race?
What Most People Get Wrong About Griggs
Some folks think this case was about lowering standards. It really wasn't. The Court was pretty clear: they weren't telling companies to hire unqualified people. They were telling companies to stop using fake qualifications.
If you're hiring a coal handler (which was one of the jobs at Duke Power), why do they need to know high-school-level algebra or abstract mechanical theory from a booklet? If they can shovel coal and follow safety protocols, they're qualified.
Another misconception is that this only applies to race. Today, disparate impact rules apply to gender, age, religion—basically any protected class. If a company requires all employees to lift 100 pounds for a desk job, and that requirement disqualifies more women than men, the company has to prove why a desk job requires that kind of muscle. If they can't, they're in trouble.
The 2026 Context: AI and Algorithms
We’re seeing a "Griggs 2.0" moment right now. Companies aren't using paper Wonderlic tests as much; they're using AI algorithms to screen resumes.
The problem is the same.
If an AI filters out people who live in certain zip codes or who have gaps in their resumes, and that filter disproportionately hits a specific minority group, the "it's just an algorithm" defense doesn't work. The legacy of Willie Griggs means the outcome is what gets measured in court.
Actionable Insights for the Modern Workplace
If you’re a business owner or a hiring manager, you can’t just wing it with your requirements. The "culture fit" or "general intelligence" vibe is a legal landmine.
- Audit Your Requirements: Look at every "must-have" on your job descriptions. If you require a Master’s degree for an entry-level marketing role, can you prove it's necessary? If not, you might be creating an accidental barrier.
- Validate Your Tests: If you use "pre-employment assessments," ask the vendor for their validation studies. You need to see proof that their test actually correlates with job performance across different demographics.
- Focus on Skills, Not Pedigree: Skills-based hiring is the safest path. Testing someone on their ability to actually do a task (like writing code or selling a product) is much more legally sound than testing their "general aptitude."
- Watch the Data: Check your "pass rates." If 80% of one group is passing your screening but only 20% of another group is, you have a disparate impact problem that needs fixing before it becomes a lawsuit.
Griggs v. Duke Power essentially told Corporate America: "The headwind must be real." You can't set up obstacles just for the sake of it. You have to measure the person for the job, not the person in the abstract.
To stay compliant and ethical in today's market, you should start by reviewing your current hiring filters. Identify any criteria that aren't strictly necessary for daily operations and consider removing them to broaden your talent pool and minimize legal risk.