...related to job performance, the practice is prohibited." and, further, that: ". . . good intent or the absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment...procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups and are unrelated to • measuring job capability." A task to which...

...discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. . . . [AJbsence of discriminatory intent does " not redeem employment...procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups . . . [401 US at 431-432 (1971).] The same nrinciple has been applied...

...discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. . . . [AJbsence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment...procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups . . . [401 US at 431-432 (1971).] The same principle has been applied...

...enforceing the law are entitled to great deference. The "absence of discriminatory intent," the Court said, "does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in neadwinds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.'' In other important...

...enforceing the law are entitled to great deference. The "absence of discriminatory intent," the Court said, "does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability.'' In other important...

...provisions of the Civil Rights Acts pertaining to employment opportunities. The Court further stated that good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does...procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as "built-in headwinds" for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability. Moreover, any practice,...

...19, at 1558. 21. Id. 22. Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 US 424, 432 (1971). The Supreme Court stated that "good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures. . .that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups...." This was consistent with the lower...

...19, at 1558. 21. Id. 22. Griggs v. Duke Power, 401 US 424, 432 (1971). The Supreme Court stated that "good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures. . .that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups...." This was consistent with the lower...

...discriminate; patterned differentiation, to their disadvantage, was discrimination enough. Even further, "Good intent or absence of discriminatory intent does...procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in headwinds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability."112 A deep change of...

...the tests used were not deliberately discriminatory, but the Supreme Court concluded that: "[G]ood intent. . .does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as 'built-in head-winds' for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability."1' Another problem is...