In today's competitive job market, many employers require their employees to have college degrees, but this common practice raises important questions about discrimination and equal opportunity.
Understanding when degree requirements constitute illegal discrimination is critical for both employers creating job descriptions and job seekers navigating the application process.
Whether or not a hiring requirement is discriminatory depends on its intent and its effect. Some employers adopt screening tests or criteria with the purpose of screening out certain applicants. For example, imposing a difficult strength test might have the effect of screening out larger numbers of women. If an employer's intent is to discriminate, and its hiring criteria are simply a smokescreen for this true purpose, then the employer is discriminating.
But even if an employer has no intent to discriminate, its hiring criteria may have that effect. If a selection test or requirement has a disproportionate effect on applicants in a particular protected category, that might be illegal discrimination. The key is whether the requirement is truly necessary to do the job. For example, a strength test might screen out disproportionate numbers of female applicants, but might also be necessary for a job as a firefighter, construction worker, or logger.
An employer whose screening test or requirement has a disparate impact on a protected group must show that the requirement is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
This is intended to be a difficult hurdle, but not an impossible one. For example, an attorney needs to pass the bar exam to practice law, so requiring applicants for an associate position at a law firm to be admitted to the bar would meet this test.
Similarly, many skills tests would pass legal muster, as long as the skills tested truly were necessary to do the job.
Degree requirements are more slippery, in part because it isn't clear exactly what particular skills, aptitudes, or abilities a degree confers (unless a particular degree is required for licensing, like a law degree or medical degree generally is).
And, degree requirements often do have a disparate impact against minority applicants. In fact, the first Supreme Court case to recognize disparate impact discrimination cases involved a degree requirement. In Griggs v. Duke Power Company, an employer required a high school diploma or passing scores on intelligence tests for certain jobs, which disproportionately excluded African American applicants based on longstanding educational inequalities in North Carolina (401 U.S. 424 (1971).
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits not only intentional discrimination but also practices that are "fair in form, but discriminatory in operation" unless the employer can prove they are job-related and consistent with business necessity—a standard Duke Power failed to meet as they couldn't demonstrate these requirements were actually necessary for job performance.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that educational requirements must be both job-related and consistent with business necessity if they disproportionately exclude certain protected groups. Employers must be prepared to demonstrate that the requirement bears a demonstrable relationship to successful performance of the job in question.
Many forward-thinking employers are moving away from rigid degree requirements in favor of skills-based hiring. This approach focuses on whether candidates have the specific competencies needed for the role, rather than using degrees as proxies for skills.
Companies like Google, Apple, and IBM have eliminated degree requirements for many positions, recognizing that valuable skills can be acquired through various pathways including work experience, vocational training, and self-study.
When evaluating whether a degree requirement might violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers should consider:
Need a lawyer? Start here.