Thread by @LoganLancing

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) is one of the most influential U.S. Supreme Court decisions in employment law. It introduced the concept of "disparate impact," and its implications reach far beyond the workplace. Here's why it was a mistake. 🧵

In Griggs, Duke Power required employees to pass IQ tests or have a high school diploma to qualify for certain jobs. The Court ruled these requirements were discriminatory because they disproportionately excluded black workers, even without discriminatory intent.

The Court held that practices neutral on their face could still violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they resulted in disparate outcomes for protected groups, unless the employer could show the practice was "job-related and consistent with business necessity."

This decision shifted focus from intentional discrimination to statistical disparities. The burden of proof fell on employers to justify neutral practices, even when no intent to discriminate existed.

Disparate impact theory is flawed for several reasons. First, it assumes equality of outcomes should be the norm, ignoring individual differences in skills, education, or experience. Inequality is and has always been the norm.

Second, it undermines objective standards in hiring. Employers avoid practices that could create statistical disparities, even if those practices are effective for screening qualified candidates.

Third, it incentivizes hiring based on race or other protected characteristics to avoid legal challenges, effectively institutionalizing race-conscious decision-making in the workplace.

Disparate impact also expanded beyond employment. It influences housing, education, and lending practices, creating incentives to prioritize outcomes over merit, fairness, or individual accountability.

It catalyzed the "DEI" boom, blowing open the door for Critical Race Theory and the rest to step in and claim "expert" status for telling companies, etc. how all of this is supposed to work.

The unintended consequence is a chilling effect on innovation and efficiency. Companies fear legal repercussions more than they value optimizing for excellence or productivity.

Griggs v. Duke Power set a precedent that shifted civil rights law from addressing explicit discrimination to enforcing statistical equity. This undermines true fairness and erodes trust in objective standards.

Justice should focus on rooting out intentional discrimination, not imposing statistical parity. Griggs entrenched identity politics in law, with long-term cultural and economic consequences.

Here we are.

The solution isn't to ignore disparities, and ot certainly isn't to punish employers for neutral standards. Ending disparate impact doctrine would be a huge victory for correcting the course and replacing "social justice" with justice.

Disparate impact law prioritizes equality of outcome over equality of opportunity. Griggs v. Duke Power opened the door to policies that undermine individual merit and distort societal incentives. It's time to end it.