As an HR Professional you must be familiar with several different lawsuits and their affect on human resource practices today. What legal case found that a test that has an adverse impact on a protect

In Washington v. Davis, the Supreme Court upheld a verbal aptitude test used to screen Washington D.C. police recruits despite its disparate impact on Black applicants, ruling the test was constitutional because it was shown to be job-related (correlated with performance in police training). This case affirmed that job-relatedness and validity are sufficient defenses against adverse impact claims under constitutional review. It is the landmark case most directly addressing the lawfulness of a test with adverse impact when validity is demonstrated.

Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) established the disparate impact doctrine and ruled that employment tests with adverse impact are unlawful UNLESS job-related - it set the burden, not the exception.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) established the burden-shifting framework for proving intentional (disparate treatment) discrimination under Title VII, not the validity defense for adverse impact.

Albemarle Paper v. Moody (1975) reinforced Griggs by clarifying the standards for test validation and back-pay remedies, but it did not specifically rule on the lawfulness of a job-related test with adverse impact.