What does Griggs vs Duke Power emphasize regarding selection practices?

Griggs vs. Duke Power is a landmark Supreme Court case that addresses employment discrimination and the validity of selection practices used by employers. The correct focus in this context is on job-relatedness to business necessity. This principle reinforces the idea that any employment practices, including selection criteria, must be genuinely related to the job responsibilities and requirements.

The ruling established that organizations must demonstrate that their methods for selecting employees are essential for the job being performed. Therefore, if a selection test disproportionately affects a particular demographic group, the employer must show that the test is directly relevant to job performance and is a necessity for the business. This case set a precedent for evaluating employment practices, ensuring they are both fair and justified based on their relationship to job tasks and goals.

The other options do not capture the primary emphasis of the case as accurately. While intent of the employer and demographic fairness may play roles in discussions of discrimination, Griggs vs. Duke Power specifically underscores the importance of job-relatedness and the need for employers to validate their selection practices in terms of their necessity to fulfill job functions effectively. Cost-effectiveness, although relevant to business decisions, is not a legal requirement in the context of fair employment practices as highlighted in this case.