Which Supreme Court case held that an employment practice, if job-related, may be allowed even with discriminatory outcomes?

• A. Roe v. Wade
• B. Brown v Board of Education
• C. Miranda v. Arizona
• D. Griggs v. Duke Power Co

Answer: (D)

Disparate impact under Title VII shows that an employment practice can be permissible only if it is job-related and consistent with business necessity, even when its effect is discriminatory. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is the classic ruling that establishes this standard. In that case, Duke Power required a high school diploma and passing scores on standardized tests for job advancement. Although those requirements were facially neutral, they disproportionately filtered out African American applicants. The Supreme Court held that Title VII requires employers to prove that such requirements are actually related to the job and necessary for the business. Since the company failed to show that the diploma and tests predicted job performance, the policy violated Title VII despite its neutral appearance. This case thus clarifies that discriminatory outcomes cannot be justified by a neutral practice unless the employer demonstrates clear job-relatedness and business necessity. The other listed cases address abortion rights, school desegregation, and police interrogation, not employment discrimination under Title VII.