# Griggs v. Duke Power Co. *1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that employment tests with a disparate impact must be job-related.* **Griggs v. Duke Power Co.**, 401 U.S. 424 (1971), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, issued on March 8, 1971, by a vote of 8–0, with Chief Justice Warren Burger writing for the Court.[^1] The Court held that an employment test with a disparate impact must be job-related. The project's Time Table records the decision as the origin of the disparate-impact doctrine.[^1][^2] In the opinion, at 401 U.S. 436, the Court quoted Humphrey, the Senate Majority Whip who floor-managed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The quoted passage concerned the testing amendment that became §703(h) of [[Title VII]] of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]].[^1][^3] The project's at-issue record sets that passage beside Humphrey's floor assurances on the same title. It also sets it beside a 2025 White House order that states a policy of eliminating disparate-impact liability.[^4] Burger was born in Saint Paul in 1907.[^5] On January 14, 2026, the United States filed a Title VII complaint against the State of [[Minnesota]] that cites [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]] eight times.[^6] The [[United States Department of Justice]] announced the suit in release No. 26-21, *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*.[^7] The project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages finds Minnesota the only U.S. state so described.[^8] ## Who - Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the opinion for an 8–0 Court.[^1] The project's companion history table lists the case as "Burger, C.J., 8–0."[^9] - Humphrey was Senate Majority Whip and floor manager of the 1964 Act. The Court quoted him at 401 U.S. 436.[^3][^1] ## What - The Court held that employment tests must be job-related where they have a disparate impact.[^1][^2] - The project's history table summarizes the holding with the opinion's phrase "The consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation."[^9][^1] - At 401 U.S. 436, the Court quoted Humphrey on the Tower Amendment substitute. He told the Senate that "Senators on both sides of the aisle who were deeply interested in title VII have examined the text of this amendment, and have found it to be in accord with the intent and purpose of that title."[^1] ## When - March 8, 1971: *Griggs* decided.[^1] - 1975: in *Albemarle Paper v. Moody*, 422 U.S. 405, the Supreme Court strengthened the *Griggs* disparate-impact standard, according to the Time Table.[^10] - 1976: in *Washington v. Davis*, 426 U.S. 229, the Court limited *Griggs* by requiring proof of intent for equal-protection claims.[^11] The Time Table records that the decision created tension between the statutory standard of *Griggs* and the constitutional standard.[^12] - 1991: after *Wards Cove*, Congress restored the *Griggs* burden allocation by statute, according to the project's history table.[^13] ## Where - The decision was issued in Washington, D.C.[^1] ## In the at-issue record At-issue entry AI-Humphrey-072 pairs *Griggs* with Humphrey's 1964 statements on Title VII, as recorded in the Congressional Record.[^4] On the floor, Humphrey said: "The truth is that this title forbids discriminating against anyone on account of race." That statement appears at 110 Cong. Rec. 6549 and is quoted in *United Steelworkers v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193, 231 (1979) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).[^3] He also said: "Nothing in the bill would permit any official or court to require any employer or labor union to give preferential treatment to any minority group." That statement appears at 110 Cong. Rec. 5423 and is quoted at 443 U.S. 229–230.[^3] The dossier identifies §703(j), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(j), as the statutory codification of these assurances.[^3] The entry states that in *Griggs* the Court quoted Humphrey at 401 U.S. 436 endorsing the testing compromise that became §703(h). According to the entry, the Court then built the disparate-impact doctrine on the same statute.[^4][^1] The dossier also records that in *Weber* both the majority and the dissent quoted Humphrey, and that they reached opposite results. Justice Brennan's majority quoted him to permit voluntary race-conscious affirmative action. Justice Rehnquist's dissent quoted the quota disclaimers to forbid it.[^3] The entry's anchor is the White House order *Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy* (2025). The order states the policy "to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts."[^14] ## In the Minnesota record ### Who - Burger was born in Saint Paul in 1907. The project's history records that he was educated at a [[Night law school]].[^5] - The project's Time Table links the opinion to [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]]. It describes Burger, a Minnesota native, as establishing the framework for that statute.[^15] The record does not establish that § 43A.191 or the federal complaint cites *Griggs*. ### What - *[[United States v. State of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00273)]]* (D. Minn. filed Jan. 14, 2026) is a Title VII action brought by the United States against the State.[^6] The complaint cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times. These citations include subd. 3(c)'s requirement that an agency explain the reason for hiring a non-affirmative candidate.[^6] This record documents no ruling on the complaint's allegations. - In *[[Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services]]*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025), the Supreme Court held that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision "draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs." The Court rejected the Sixth Circuit's heightened "background circumstances" rule for majority-group plaintiffs.[^16] ### When - January 14, 2026: the Department of Justice announced the suit in release No. 26-21, *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*. The release states that Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified the case as a matter of general public importance.[^7] - The project's catalogue of U.S.-government "regime" usages, in [[How Minnesota Got Here]] note 40, finds Minnesota the only U.S. state so described.[^8] Among the federal usages it documents is the [[Iraq Liberation Act]] of 1998, Pub. L. 105-338. That Act states the policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein."[^8] ## Notes [^1]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Griggs v. Duke Power Co.*, 401 U.S. 424 (Mar. 8, 1971) — Burger, C.J., for an 8–0 Court. The page establishes the holding that employment tests with disparate impact must be job-related and the quotation of Humphrey at 436. It is also the source cited for Time Table rows TL-0240 and TL-0242 (Washington, D.C.). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/ [^2]: Legal Information Institute, *Griggs v. Duke Power Co.*, 401 U.S. 424 (1971) — full text of the opinion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/401/424 [^3]: Project dossier, *HHH_Waverly_Apex_Dossier_2026-09-02.md* §IV.5 (validated) — Humphrey as Senate Majority Whip and floor manager; 110 Cong. Rec. 6549 and 5423 as quoted in *United Steelworkers v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193, 229–231 (1979); §703(j), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(j); the opposite uses of Humphrey's statements in *Weber*. The Congressional Record and *Weber* are not fetched in this pack, and this row carries no URL. [^4]: Project at-issue record, *AI-Humphrey-072*, section "The Waverly Promise & the Boundary County Edition" (source: dossier §IV.5; source domain supreme.justia.com) — sets *Griggs* at 401 U.S. 436 beside the Humphrey floor statements and the 2025 White House order. This row carries no URL. [^5]: Project history, row HE-0075 (§XI.1) — Burger, born in Saint Paul in 1907 and educated at night law school. This row carries no URL. [^6]: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, *Complaint, United States v. State of Minnesota*, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (D. Minn. filed Jan. 14, 2026) — Title VII action; cites Minn. Stat. § 43A.191 eight times, including subd. 3(c). https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^7]: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, *United States Department of Justice Files Lawsuit Against Minnesota's 'Affirmative Action' Regime*, release No. 26-21 (Jan. 14, 2026) — announces the suit and states that Attorney General Pamela Bondi certified it as a matter of general public importance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-department-justice-files-lawsuit-against-minnesotas-affirmative-action-regime [^8]: U.S. Congress, *Iraq Liberation Act of 1998*, Pub. L. 105-338 — states the policy of supporting efforts to remove "the regime headed by Saddam Hussein." The project's catalogue finding (How Minnesota Got Here, note 40) is that Minnesota is the only U.S. state so described. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-105publ338/pdf/PLAW-105publ338.pdf [^9]: Project history, companion table row HE-0167 (Mar. 8, 1971) — "Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 U.S. 424 — Burger, C.J., 8–0," with the quoted phrase. This row carries no URL. [^10]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Albemarle Paper v. Moody*, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) — Time Table row TL-0292: strengthens the *Griggs* disparate-impact standard. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/405/ [^11]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Washington v. Davis*, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) — Time Table row TL-0297: limits *Griggs* and requires intent for equal-protection claims. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/229/ [^12]: Wikipedia, *Washington v. Davis* — Time Table row TL-0298: tension between the statutory (*Griggs*) and constitutional standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Davis [^13]: Project history, companion table row HE-0197 (1991) — Congress restores the *Griggs* burden allocation by statute after *Wards Cove*. This row carries no URL. [^14]: The White House, *Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy* (2025) — states the policy "to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts." https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy [^15]: Wikipedia, *Griggs v. Duke Power Co.* — Time Table row TL-0241 (Mar. 8, 1971): Burger, a Minnesota native, writes the *Griggs* opinion and establishes the framework for §43A.191 (project theory tags T1, T11). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co [^16]: Supreme Court of the United States, *Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services*, 605 U.S. 303 (2025) — holds that Title VII's disparate-treatment provision draws no distinction between majority-group and minority-group plaintiffs, and rejects the "background circumstances" rule. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1039_c0n2.pdf