Summary Of The Griggs V Green The Supreme Court
1. A business fails to meet the criteria if its practices are not equal and if has procedures unrelated to necessary job functions in the organization. In the case of McDonnell Douglas vs Green the Supreme Court holds that a charging party can prove unlawful discrimination indirectly by showing a failure in the organizational business process. In this case the hiring and firing of an employee, McDonnell Douglas was taken to court over their unethical tactics. The charging party has to only prove four things: they are a minority (protected group), they applied and were qualified for the position, the job was not offered to them, and the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications. If the plaintiff can prove these four elements, the employer must show a legitimate lawful reason why the person was not hired.
…show more content…
This example did not meet the criteria for EEO. The Griggs vs Duke did not meet the criteria due to other reasons. Griggs V. Duke Power Co displayed lack of EEO Compliance by having a neutral rule (high school Diploma) that disparately impacted a minority (Blacks) that had no direct relevance to the performance needed for the job. It was also proven that minorities did not have the same passing rates for the test as white people. This practice was determined not to be job related or necessary for the job, which is why it did not meet the EEO criteria. The two cases did not meet the criterion because both cases displayed actions of
This example did not meet the criteria for EEO. The Griggs vs Duke did not meet the criteria due to other reasons. Griggs V. Duke Power Co displayed lack of EEO Compliance by having a neutral rule (high school Diploma) that disparately impacted a minority (Blacks) that had no direct relevance to the performance needed for the job. It was also proven that minorities did not have the same passing rates for the test as white people. This practice was determined not to be job related or necessary for the job, which is why it did not meet the EEO criteria. The two cases did not meet the criterion because both cases displayed actions of