MENU
As a HR Professional you must be familiar with several different lawsuits and their affect on human resource practices today. This adverse impact lawsuit determined that discrimination need not be deliberate or observable to be real. Employees were segregated by race and were allowed to work only in the lowest paid position. What lawsuit is described?
Suggested Answer: D
Get Premium PHR Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
Fran should not inspect Lucas' work just because he has asked for time off based on a religious holiday.
Answer option A is incorrect. There's no evidence of past historical discrimination in this example.
Answer option B is incorrect. This isn't a valid answer for the question as any discrimination based on religion falls into disparate discrimination.
Answer option C is incorrect. Quality control does inspect the quality of the work, but it's equal for all project deliverables, not just the deliverables tied to Lucas and his request for time off for the religious holiday.
31 comments · newest first
AD
Adelaide
10 months ago
Griggs was all about unintentional discrimination, right?
KA
Karrie
11 months ago
Wait, are we sure it’s not McDonnell Douglas?
SA
Sage
11 months ago
Totally agree, Griggs set a huge precedent.
TA
Tammara
11 months ago
I thought it was Albemarle Paper vs. Moody.
VI
Vi
11 months ago
That's definitely Griggs vs. Duke Power!
JA
Janae
12 months ago
I remember Washington versus Davis being about testing and discrimination too, but I can't recall the specifics.
KA
Katheryn
12 months ago
I practiced a similar question, and I think it was about how discrimination doesn't have to be intentional. That sounds like Griggs.
LA
Lavonda
12 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like Albemarle Paper versus Moody could also relate to discrimination in hiring practices.
AS
Ashley
1 year ago
I think this might be Griggs versus Duke Power. I remember it was about employment tests and discrimination.
TE
Tegan
1 year ago
This sounds like the Griggs v. Duke Power case to me. That established the concept of "adverse impact" and said employers can't use hiring practices that disproportionately exclude protected groups, even if it's unintentional. I'm feeling good about picking A for this one.
DA
Dana
1 year ago
Wait, I'm a bit confused. The details about segregation and low-paid positions make me think of a different case, maybe Washington v. Davis? Or was that a different one? I'll have to review my notes to be sure on this.
RO
Rodrigo
1 year ago
Okay, I think I've got it. This has to be the Griggs v. Duke Power case - that's the one that said discrimination can be real even if it's not obvious or deliberate, right? I'm pretty confident that's the right answer here.
IL
Ilda
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm a little unsure on this one. The details about segregation by race and only allowing work in the lowest paid positions sound familiar, but I can't quite place which specific case it's referring to. I'll have to think this through carefully.
CE
Celeste
1 year ago
This question seems straightforward - the description matches the Griggs v. Duke Power case from 1971, which established that discrimination doesn't have to be intentional to be unlawful.
AR
Arlen
1 year ago
Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971 is the answer. That case showed that even if you're not actively trying to discriminate, you could still be in hot water. It's like when you accidentally invite your boss to your pool party, but then realize your pool is filled with jello.
JE
Jettie
1 year ago
It just goes to show how important it is to be aware of the impact of your decisions on others.
SA
Sarah
1 year ago
I remember learning about that case in my HR class, it's definitely a cautionary tale.
HY
Hyun
1 year ago
It's crazy how that case showed that even unintentional actions can have serious consequences.
KA
Katina
1 year ago
Yeah, Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971 really set the precedent for unintentional discrimination.
LA
Lashandra
1 year ago
Definitely Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971. That case was a real game-changer. Now HR professionals have to watch out for even the most subtle forms of discrimination. Although, to be fair, I heard Duke Power was paying their employees in dinosaur bones back then.
DE
Delmy
1 year ago
It's crazy to think about how far we've come in terms of recognizing and addressing discrimination in the workplace.
EL
Ellsworth
1 year ago
Yes, you're right! Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971 was a landmark case for sure.
HE
Herschel
1 year ago
I remember studying this case, it really highlighted the importance of addressing unintentional discrimination in the workplace.
SH
Shelton
1 year ago
I'm pretty sure it's Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971. That case really shook up the HR world back in the day. Kinda like when your boss asks you to take a DNA test to prove you're not an alien, you know?
BE
Belen
1 year ago
I agree with Annelle, because in that case, discrimination was found even though it was not intentional.
LE
Leontine
2 years ago
Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971 is the correct answer. This landmark case established that even neutral employment practices that have a disproportionate adverse impact on protected groups can be considered discriminatory.
SA
Sarah
1 year ago
No, that case dealt with testing and validation procedures for employment practices.
MA
Malcom
1 year ago
B) Albemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975
CA
Carrol
1 year ago
That's correct! This case was a significant step in addressing discrimination in the workplace.
AL
Alline
1 year ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
AN
Annelle
2 years ago
I think the lawsuit described is A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971.