← All Authorities
United States Leading Case uncategorised

Griggs v Duke Power Co

401 U.S. 424 (1971)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Supreme Court
Year1971
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Facially neutral employment practices with disparate impact on protected groups violate Title VII unless justified by business necessity.

Key Principle

Disparate impact doctrine; applies in fair lending context; facially neutral practices with discriminatory effect require business necessity justification

Area of Law

banking

Related Cases

Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall (2019) 272 CLR 1

A bank owes a duty of care to guarantors to take reasonable steps to ensure they understand the nature and effect of the guarantee under the Code of Banking Practice.

AUSTRAC v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2018] FCA 930

CBA liable for systemic AML/CTF Act contraventions including failure to report suspicious matters and threshold transactions via intelligent deposit machines, resulting in $700 million civil penalty.

Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (Full Federal Court) (2015) 236 FCR 199

Full Federal Court held that bank late payment fees were not penalties or unconscionable under consumer protection law as they bore a genuine pre-estimate of loss or legitimate commercial interest.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Griggs v Duke Power Co and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Griggs v Duke Power Co