HRCI PHR Exam - Topic 2 Question 107 Discussion

Actual exam question for HRCI's PHR exam

Question #: 107
Topic #: 2

[All PHR Questions]

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?

AGriggs versus Duke Power, 1971

BAlbemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975

CWashington versus Davis, 1976

DMcDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: D

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.

by Laurel at Feb 07, 2025, 08:02 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium PHR Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Adelaide

3 months ago

Griggs was all about unintentional discrimination, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Karrie

3 months ago

Wait, are we sure it’s not McDonnell Douglas?

upvoted 0 times

...

Sage

3 months ago

Totally agree, Griggs set a huge precedent.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tammara

4 months ago

I thought it was Albemarle Paper vs. Moody.

upvoted 0 times

...

Vi

4 months ago

That's definitely Griggs vs. Duke Power!

upvoted 0 times

...

Janae

4 months ago

I remember Washington versus Davis being about testing and discrimination too, but I can't recall the specifics.

upvoted 0 times

...

Katheryn

4 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lavonda

4 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like Albemarle Paper versus Moody could also relate to discrimination in hiring practices.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ashley

5 months ago

I think this might be Griggs versus Duke Power. I remember it was about employment tests and discrimination.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tegan

5 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Dana

5 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rodrigo

5 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ilda

5 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Celeste

5 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

...

Arlen

10 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

Jettie

9 months ago

It just goes to show how important it is to be aware of the impact of your decisions on others.

upvoted 0 times

...

Sarah

9 months ago

I remember learning about that case in my HR class, it's definitely a cautionary tale.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hyun

9 months ago

It's crazy how that case showed that even unintentional actions can have serious consequences.

upvoted 0 times

...

Katina

10 months ago

Yeah, Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971 really set the precedent for unintentional discrimination.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lashandra

10 months 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.

upvoted 0 times

Delmy

10 months ago

It's crazy to think about how far we've come in terms of recognizing and addressing discrimination in the workplace.

upvoted 0 times

...

Ellsworth

10 months ago

Yes, you're right! Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971 was a landmark case for sure.

upvoted 0 times

...

Herschel

10 months ago

I remember studying this case, it really highlighted the importance of addressing unintentional discrimination in the workplace.

upvoted 0 times

...

Shelton

10 months 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?

upvoted 0 times

...

Belen

10 months ago

I agree with Annelle, because in that case, discrimination was found even though it was not intentional.

upvoted 0 times

...

Leontine

11 months 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.

upvoted 0 times