Do you see the word 'discriminatory' in there? Or how this was done by the EEOC?
Target set up assessments that the government alleged 'disproportionately screened out black, Asian, and female applicant'. And under Griggs v. Duke Power Co, the government doesn't have to prove discriminatory _intent_ if those assessments were 'not sufficiently job-related and consistent with business necessity', which the government also alleged.
This is...literally, word for word, what I just explained the standards were under Griggs, and I even added a caveat that while Griggs said 'functionally exclude', I kinda doubt the courts would currently be happy with something that stopped only 40% of Black applicants and 10% of whites, or whatever. You know, the exact situation that Target found themselves in.
In case people are not following:
You can give all the irrational tests you want, involving Legos or writing essays or whatever, _as long as_ they do not have discriminatory outcomes. If they do end up having a discriminatory outcome, it doesn't matter what your intent was. (Or, more relevantly to the law, the government doesn't have to _prove_ your intent.)
I understand that is what people quote from it, and seem to think it says, but that sentence is completely out of context. The context is that it is the second of two sentences:
Even if there is no discriminatory intent, an employer may not use a job requirement that functionally excludes members of a certain race if it has no relation to measuring performance of job duties. Testing or measuring procedures cannot be determinative in employment decisions unless they have some connection to the job.
For more context, Griggs v. Duke Power Co is a holding about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Which only cares about discrimination. If the first sentence is not true, if there is no discriminatory outcome, the second sentence is completely irrelevant. Employers can require prospective employees do literally anything (Not barred elsewhere by law) as long as the outcome doesn't 'functionally excludes members of a certain race'.
And notice how strong that qualifier is. It's not even 'impacts more the members of a certain race'. It has to functionally exclude members of a certain race. Or, presumably, functionally exclude other categories protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
This ruling is pretty much entirely about intent. It says 'You cannot set up unrelated tests that unintentionally discriminate. The fact it is unintentional does not matter.'. It is not intended to, surreally, bar all irrelevant employment tests from existing...the court cannot magically make a law about that! What would that even be illegal under?
(I do suspect they'd have a problem with mere disparate impact now, but Griggs v. Duke Power Co doesn't say it.)
Do you see the word 'discriminatory' in there? Or how this was done by the EEOC?
Target set up assessments that the government alleged 'disproportionately screened out black, Asian, and female applicant'. And under Griggs v. Duke Power Co, the government doesn't have to prove discriminatory _intent_ if those assessments were 'not sufficiently job-related and consistent with business necessity', which the government also alleged.
This is...literally, word for word, what I just explained the standards were under Griggs, and I even added a caveat that while Griggs said 'functionally exclude', I kinda doubt the courts would currently be happy with something that stopped only 40% of Black applicants and 10% of whites, or whatever. You know, the exact situation that Target found themselves in.
In case people are not following:
You can give all the irrational tests you want, involving Legos or writing essays or whatever, _as long as_ they do not have discriminatory outcomes. If they do end up having a discriminatory outcome, it doesn't matter what your intent was. (Or, more relevantly to the law, the government doesn't have to _prove_ your intent.)
I understand that is what people quote from it, and seem to think it says, but that sentence is completely out of context. The context is that it is the second of two sentences:
Even if there is no discriminatory intent, an employer may not use a job requirement that functionally excludes members of a certain race if it has no relation to measuring performance of job duties. Testing or measuring procedures cannot be determinative in employment decisions unless they have some connection to the job.
For more context, Griggs v. Duke Power Co is a holding about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Which only cares about discrimination. If the first sentence is not true, if there is no discriminatory outcome, the second sentence is completely irrelevant. Employers can require prospective employees do literally anything (Not barred elsewhere by law) as long as the outcome doesn't 'functionally excludes members of a certain race'.
And notice how strong that qualifier is. It's not even 'impacts more the members of a certain race'. It has to functionally exclude members of a certain race. Or, presumably, functionally exclude other categories protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
This ruling is pretty much entirely about intent. It says 'You cannot set up unrelated tests that unintentionally discriminate. The fact it is unintentional does not matter.'. It is not intended to, surreally, bar all irrelevant employment tests from existing...the court cannot magically make a law about that! What would that even be illegal under?
(I do suspect they'd have a problem with mere disparate impact now, but Griggs v. Duke Power Co doesn't say it.)
I don't think that Griggs v. Duke Power Co says what you think it says.
Or, alternately, you think racial minorities are somehow more likely to be bad at legos, which...seems unlikely for anyone to think.