In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

176 VII thiS thing iSn’t aLL that reaL The Legal Defense Fund won the case it needed to transform Title 7 into a potent tool for breaking down white employment supremacy. In subsequent decades, Title 7 case law and Supreme Court interpretations built upon Griggs and in doing so expanded the law to provide a glimmer of hope that the employment arena would approach the vision of equality many longed for during the civil rights era. Title 7 cases from the private bar pushed the limits of the disparate impact doctrine, eventually coercing companies to establish affirmative action programs in order to avoid potential lawsuits. The disparate impact doctrine has received substantial attention from legal scholars. The cases and policy developments stemming from Griggs have been examined in countless law review articles and other scholarly works on Title 7 and affirmative action. Many of these works provide a glimpse into the litigation career of Title 7 during the immediate post–civil rights era and detail the Court’s construction of the doctrine. Although the federal judiciary’s role in subsequent Title 7 decisions is significant, it does not bear repeating. Instead, I wish to point to the relative employment outcomes stemming from Griggs and the era of equal employment opportunity ushered in by the case, as well as unforeseen challenges to continued occupational gains by African Americans. After the Supreme Court’s ruling, Willie Boyd and his fellow workers returned to the district court for an exact determination of their relief. The high school graduates were promoted, and the education and testing requirements were waived for the other workers. Duke Power was also required to promote the laborers as vacancies developed. Many of the black men were offered the watchman job first, and most declined the position. A few years after the case, Duke This Thing Isn’t All that Real 177 Power eliminated the watchman classification altogether. When the Griggs plaintiffs returned to the courts, under the direction of attorney Robert Belton , the party complained of continued discriminatory practices, such as the funneling of laborers into the dead-end watchman job. However, the district court, again under Judge Gordon, found this claim too speculative, arguing, “It is impossible to believe that the defendant would be so obtuse as to consider such a blatantly heavy-handed tactic, even assuming , arguendo, that defendant did wish to discriminate against the plaintiffs.”1 Gordon ruled that because most of the black workers were promoted out of the Labor Department and received increases in their wages, proper relief had already been granted. In fact, Lewis Hairston was promoted to test assistant in the Laboratory and Test Department but was demoted back to the Labor Department and managed to maintain his wage increase. Hairston’s demotion was also a focal point of the case when the men returned to the district court, but ultimately the court ruled that this employment action also failed to support the allegation of race discrimination. The record showed, Gordon argued, that Hairston was not properly prepared to perform the job of test assistant. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit determined the district court had not erred in its recent decision and the plaintiffs would need to file a new complaint with the EEOC because the prior discriminatory practices had been eradicated.2 The Griggs case had finally come to an end four years after the Supreme Court ruling , but not without improving the lot for the plaintiffs and ultimately impacting the employment opportunities for countless other blacks and protected groups under Title 7. The Griggs party did not receive the large payouts some workers embroiled in Title 7 cases earned around the same time. Boyd’s comrade Jay Griggs was part of a victory against the American Tobacco Company in 1975 that ended with an award of $3.3 million to the aggrieved workers. Similarly, back-pay awards were approved by the Supreme Court the same year in Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody. Both Russell and Moody were argued by Chambers and staff, and both sets of plaintiffs were instrumental in civil rights activism in their respective locales. Although Jay Griggs and Joe Moody were nearing the end to their career as local activists, the legal outcomes of those careers were still earning significant gains as late as 1975.3 But Boyd was correct when he stated that the Duke Power laborers were “winners,” despite not winning a major back-pay settlement. The men received fairer opportunities and progressed to...

Share