Question

Discuss the major findings/rulings and selection/recruitment implications of the following select court cases.

*Griggs v. Duke Power (1971)
*US v. Georgia Power (1973)
*Spurlock v. United Airlines (1972)
*Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust (1988)
*Rudder v. District of Columbia (1995)
*Frank Ricci et al. v. Hohn DeStefano et al. (2009)
*OFCCP v. Ozark Airlines (1986)
*Gross v. FBL Financial Services (2009)

Answer 1

****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please****

Griggs v. Duke Power (1971)

Case:

13 black employees file a class-action suit against Duke - discriminatory employment practices. Suit focused on recently developed selection requirements for company's operations units. New requirements saying a high school diploma, pass mechanical apt. Test and gen intelligence test were unfair. Original courts ruled in favor of Duke but The Supreme Court reversed previous decisions.

Major Ruling/Findings:

1. Lack of discriminatory intent not sufficient defense.

2. Selection test must be job related if adverse impact results.

3. Employer bears burden of proof in face of apparent adverse impact.

Implications:

1. Applicants carry the burden of proving the adverse impact of a particular selection device.

2. Court said that the 1970 EEOC Guidelines were entitled to “deference” when an organization tried to prove the validity of its selection program - meaning the principles of the Guidelines are the standard against which to judge a company’s defence.

US v. Georgia Power (1973)

Case:

Attorney Gen sued GP for discrimination against black employees in 1969. The Black employees were classified as janitors, porters, maids and laborers while white employees occupied higher positions. In 1960 new standards included high school diploma or GED for employment. In 1963 a new standard included all new employees had to pass a battery of tests which was instituted less than 1 month after the discontinuance of formal job segregation. No study of these tests to determine job relatedness had been conducted before the filing of the suit.

Major Ruling/Findings:

1. Validation strategy must comply with EEOC guidelines.

2. Validation must include affected groups.

3. Validation must reflect selection decision practices.

4. Testing must occur under standardized conditions.

Implications:

1. Court held that the validation study did not meet the minimum standards recommended for a validation strategy by the EEOC Guidelines.

2. According to EEOC Guidelines, tests must be administered under controlled and standardized conditions. In this case, the testing of new applicants was uniform, but that testing of incumbents was not.

3. The court struck down the company’s use of diploma requirements on the grounds that there was no evidence relating the possession of a diploma to job performance.

Spurlock v. United Airlines (1972)

Case:

Spurlock filed suit agains UA charging discrimination against blacks. His evidence was that only 9 out of 5900 flight officers were black. Spurlock challenged two of the requirements for the job: college degree and a minimum of 500 hours of flight time.

Major Ruling/Findings:

1. College degree and experience requirements are shown to be job related.

2. Company’s burden of proof diminishes as human risks increase.

Implications:

1. Courts that when a job requires a small amount of skill and training and the consequences of hiring an unqualified applicant are insignificant, the courts should closely examine selection instruments that are discriminatory - however, when the job requires a high degree of skill and the economic and human risks involved are greater, the employer bears a lighter burden to show that selection instruments are job related.

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust (1988)

Case:

A black employee at Fort Worth Bank & Trust was rejected four times for promotion to supervisory positions in favor of white applicants. In assessing her candidacy, the bank used interviews, rating scales and experience requirements which had not been subjected to validation procedures. After her fourth rejection, the employee brought a claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Major Ruling/Findings:

1. Cases focusing on subjective selection devices, such as interviews and judgements, could be hears as disparate impact.

2. Organization may need to validate interview in same manner as objective test.

Implications:

1. The court ruled that, while she had made a prima facie case of discrimination, the bank had a legitimate nondiscriminatory basis for not promoting her.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the holding. Because the question of whether disparate impact analysis could be used with subjective devices had been answered differently by a number of federal appeals courts, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

2. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case.

Rudder v. District of Columbia (1995)

Case:

Charge in the case is that the examinations used for the positions of captain, lieutenant, and sergeant used by the Dis of Columbia FD adversely affected black firefighters.

Major Ruling/Findings:

1. Content validity is acceptable defense for adverse impact.

2. Job analysis, ensuring adequate representation of minority groups in data collection, is essential.

3. Clear links must be shown between job analysis information, test questions, and correct answers.

4. Attention to test security and administration are important.

Implications:

1. Courts ruled that the procedures used were more than sufficient evidence and the examination was valid and job related.

Frank Ricci et al. v. Hohn DeStefano et al. (2009)

Case:

Case about the use of written selection test and an interview that were used to identify candidates for promotion into ranks of lieutenant and captain in the New Have, Connecticut FD. The exam produced racially disproportionate results, favoring white candidates over black candidates. As a result, New Haven ultimately did not certify the examination. Ricci and other candidates who scored higher on the examination and thus were eligible for promotion sued New Haven, claiming racial discrimination against the higher scoring candidates.

Major Ruling/Findings:

1. Adverse impact present as blacks scored less well on tests than whites and Hispanics.

2. Discrimination directed toward whites and Hispanics.

3. Threat of lawsuit is not defense for disregarding job-related selection tests.

4. Adverse impact can be defended by job relatedness of selection tests.

Implications:

1. The Supreme court ruled(with white and Hispanic applicants) that the decision to void the exam scores violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

2. There appears to be enough evidence in terms of the tests’ construction to indicate that the tests in this case were job related.

3. There was no evidence that an alternative testing procedure would have less adverse impact than did the tests that were given.

4. Adjusting the test scores of black applicants would have violated Title VII.

OFCCP v. Ozark Airlines (1986)

Case:

Concerns the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Frey’s (represented by OFCCP) left ear was non functioning but right ear was unimpaired. Frey was denied a position because of his hearing disability and failure to prove that he could carry out the job duties w/out endangering himself and others. Ozark could not prove he was a danger to himself and others. He could wear protection to cover his ears, therefore avoiding damage to his “good” ear.

Major Ruling/Findings:

1. In disability cases, organization must prove that individual cannot perform job.

2. Reasonable accommodation must be given to disabled individual.

Implications:

1. Case ruling was by OFCCP because Ozark Airlines was a Federal Contractor.

2. Frey won and was awarded back pay.

3. Burden to prove that Frey’s employment would have endangered him and others was on Ozark and they did not prove that.

4. Ruling stated that a disabled person is “qualified for employment if he or she is capable of performing a particular job with reasonable accommodation to his or her handicap.”

5. OFCCP stated that Ozark failed to show that Frey’s hearing (in good ear) could not be protected by wearing ear protectors.

Gross v. FBL Financial Services (2009)

Case:

Case about age discrimination. Gross claimed he was reassigned due to his age and many of his previous tasks were assigned to someone younger than him.

Major Ruling/Findings:

1. Central question was how much evidence must plaintiff produce in age discrimination claim to force defendant to provide evidence that it did not use age in decision.

2. Plaintiff must provide clear evidence that age was “but-for” reason for decision.

3. Ruling significantly increases the amount of evidence that plaintiff must provide to obtain judgement that age discrimination occurred.

Implications:

1. Original decision by jury was in favor of Gross.

2. The Supreme Court disagreed with the instructions given to the jury by the judge the first time.

3. The Supreme Court stated that the burden of proof is different in cases filed under ADEA of 1967 than it is for Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967.

4. In ADEA cases, the plaintiff must provide clear evidence that age was the “but-for” reason for the employment decision.

5. The plaintiff, Gross, had not produced sufficient evidence to make a claim that ae discrimination occured.