Question

How do the results of the Duke Power case and subsequent decisions about racial discrimination impact how companies hire, promote, and terminate employees today? If you were working in HR or in management, how would you respond (in conjunction with legal counsel, of course!) to a claim like one of these 3? After all, it is fairly common even now for HR directors and managers to be called to give a deposition on behalf of legal and EEOC / Missouri Commission on Human Rights / City of St Louis Civil Rights Enforcement Agency proceedings to defend the company's decisions; when the candidate, employee or former employee asserts discrimination in hiring, promotions, or terminations. If you were the supervisor of Willie Griggs or Percy Green II, how would you have initially explained the decision not to promote (in the Duke Power case) or to layoff and not rehire (in the McDonnell Douglas case), when talking to the employee? (Assuming that was a possibility.)

Answer 1

The Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and other similar Supreme Court decisions have led to the eradication of racially biased job requirements and fostered the creation of fair and equitable hiring, promotion, and termination practices in companies.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Supreme Court rulings in cases like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. and Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins have had a profound impact on company practices regarding hiring, promotion, and termination. The Griggs decision made it illegal to include job requirements that disproportionately affect one race over another unless directly related to job performance. This ruling, alongside the recognition of the benefits of diverse workforces and the legal consequences of continued discrimination, has spurred companies to implement fairer employment practices.

If faced with discrimination claims, as an HR or management professional, I would ensure decisions are based on objective criteria and documented thoroughly, displaying a clear, non-discriminatory rationale for employment actions. In cases like Griggs or McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, the explanation for not promoting or rehiring would be rooted in justifiable, job-related requirements or performance issues, devoid of any racial bias.