Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424¶
Supreme Court of the United States. (1971). Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424. United States Reports.
Cited by¶
9 citations across 9 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Mechanisms¶
- Access Criteria Audit
- This is exactly where a disparate impact analysis is instructive — a facially neutral rule can produce a lopsided pattern of who gets in, and the audit is built to catch that gap between intent and effect.
This sourceHolds that a facially neutral selection rule can produce a sharply unequal pattern of admission or exclusion.
- This is exactly where a disparate impact analysis is instructive — a facially neutral rule can produce a lopsided pattern of who gets in, and the audit is built to catch that gap between intent and effect.
- Equity Impact Assessment
- Its strength is catching uneven harm while the design is still on the drawing board — cheap to change and not yet defended — which is the logic behind formal disparate-impact review.
This sourceEstablishes that a facially neutral practice may be unlawful when it produces discriminatory effects.
- Its strength is catching uneven harm while the design is still on the drawing board — cheap to change and not yet defended — which is the logic behind formal disparate-impact review.
- Equity Impact Review
- The concept it operationalizes — adverse effect on a protected group regardless of intent — is disparate impact.
This sourceUnited States Reports 401 U.S. 424. (1971). Establishes disparate impact as an employment practice that operates to disadvantage a protected group even without discriminatory intent.
- The concept it operationalizes — adverse effect on a protected group regardless of intent — is disparate impact.
- Ethical Impact Assessment
- It is the input that lets a translation be stopped or narrowed on evidence of who it lands on, an application of the idea of disparate impact: a facially neutral rule can fall unequally on a protected or vulnerable group.
This sourceHolds that a facially neutral employment practice can be unlawful when it operates to exclude a protected racial group without demonstrated job-related necessity.
- It is the input that lets a translation be stopped or narrowed on evidence of who it lands on, an application of the idea of disparate impact: a facially neutral rule can fall unequally on a protected or vulnerable group.
- Fast-Track Lane with Audit
- … failure mode is disparate impact: if fast-track eligibility correlates with privilege — income, data completeness, language fluency, familiarity with the system — the lane becomes a hidden inequity even when the audit shows no fraud, because a facially neutral eligibility rule can still route whole groups worse.
This sourceEstablishes that facially neutral eligibility rules can still operate to disadvantage protected groups.
- … failure mode is disparate impact: if fast-track eligibility correlates with privilege — income, data completeness, language fluency, familiarity with the system — the lane becomes a hidden inequity even when the audit shows no fraud, because a facially neutral eligibility rule can still route whole groups worse.
- Independent Rationing Equity Audit
- Its natural lens is disparate impact — a facially neutral rule that nonetheless falls more heavily on a protected group — which is exactly the pattern a fair-looking ration can hide.
This sourceEstablishes disparate impact as a facially neutral employment practice that operates more harshly against a protected racial group even without discriminatory intent.
- Its natural lens is disparate impact — a facially neutral rule that nonetheless falls more heavily on a protected group — which is exactly the pattern a fair-looking ration can hide.
- Minimum Eligibility Standard
- A facially neutral bar can also fall disproportionately on protected groups.
This sourceHolds that facially neutral employment requirements can operate discriminatorily by disproportionately excluding a protected racial group.
- A facially neutral bar can also fall disproportionately on protected groups.
- Pathway Cohort Comparison
- That finding is the mechanism's payoff: it reframes an apparently fair "many roads to licensure" as a route that imposes a disparate cost on exactly the cohort least able to bear it,
This sourceHolds that an apparently neutral practice can be discriminatory in operation when it disproportionately excludes a protected group without demonstrated job relevance.
- That finding is the mechanism's payoff: it reframes an apparently fair "many roads to licensure" as a route that imposes a disparate cost on exactly the cohort least able to bear it,
- Scalable Policy Rule Audit
- Its sharpest lens is disparate impact
This sourceEstablishes that facially neutral employment requirements can be unlawful because they operate to produce unequal group outcomes even without discriminatory intent.
- Its sharpest lens is disparate impact
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 9 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 3 other ways.
- https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-401/USREPORTS-401-424 ×6
- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/424/ ×1
- https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep401/usrep401424/usrep401424.pdf ×1
Registry ID ref:7a9756b0830c · see in the full table