Stevens' dissent argues that this court decision is a reversal of what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supposed to support, primarily eliminating the practices of jobs that have discriminatory effects. This case, according to Stevens, rejects much of what Title VII is supposed to support. Stevens mentions a court case called Griggs v. Duke Power Company, in which the ruling was that the company was discriminating against blacks. The Duke Power Company had a policy stating that blacks could only work in the labor department, which was the lowest-paid position in the entire company. Stevens acknowledges that this case is a bit unusual, but the outcome of the case means that an employer can undermine an employee's claim of being discriminated against by justifying their actions by saying it is necessary for the operation of the company. Justices Brennon, Marshall, and Blackmun joined Stevens' dissent. Blackmun wrote a dissent, agreeing with Steven on the case, adding that the court's majority decision in this case was a huge step backwards in the battle against racial discrimination. Blackmun also says this decision could upset the distribution of burdens of proof in Title VII disparate impact cases. This decision was weighted more heavily against Wards Cove rather than the people discriminated against because the evidence presented by the plaintiff did not provide sufficiently relevant information