Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424¶
States, S. C. o. t. U. (1971). Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424. United States Reports.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Mechanisms¶
- 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.
- 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.
Verification¶
This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:cacd33f90f87 · see in the full table