...of your attention, why did you neglect Chief Justice Burger's clear formulation in the Griggs case: "discriminatory preference for any group, minority...precisely and only what Congress has proscribed"? Were the law as clear as you seem, somewhat contemptuously, to think, there would have been no need...

...did not intend by Title VII ... to guarantee a Job to every person regardless of qualifications . . . the Act does not command that any person be hired...Is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed. Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League seeks no special favors for any group. We advocate equal opportunity...

...the majority of the US Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) declared that under Title VII, "Discriminatory preference for any group, minority...precisely and only what Congress has proscribed." The Court went on to support individual merit as the basis for selection and reward, declaring: "Congress...

...account of race. Congress did not intend by Title VII, however, to guarantee a job to every person regardless of qualifications. In short, the Act does...is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed. What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment...

...VII, however, i guarantee a job to every person regardless of qualifications. In short, the Act ¡loos not command that any person be hired simply because he was formerly the ubjeet of discrimination, or because he is a member of a minority group. Discriminatory preference...

...blacks or women, and the Supreme Court has read the statute as saying that "discriminatory preferences for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress 1ms proscribed."" Since Title VII covers federal contractors, it is very doubtful that the contractual...

...on the subject, the Supreme Court, in discussing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ; said: In short, the Act does not command that any person...for any group, minority or majority, is precisely only what Congress has prescribed. What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary,...

...case on the subject, the Supreme Court, in discussing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; said: In short, the Act does not command that any person...Discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, Ls precisely only what Congress has prescribed. What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial,...

...of your attention, why did you neglect Chief Justice Burger's clear formulation in the Grigga case : "discriminatory preference for any group, minority...is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed" ? Were the law as clear as you seem, somewhat contemptuously, to think, there would have been no need...

...York court quoted with approval a dictum from GRIGGS v. DUKE POWER COMPANY, 1)01 US 121, 1130 (1971); "In short, the Act does not command that any person...precisely and only what Congress has proscribed." 337 NYS 2d at 111, 5 PEP Cases at 281. Later on in the quoted decision, the United States Supreme Court...