Until recently, because of the shortage of instructors, junior colleges set few employment restrictions. Standard qualifications were mastery of subject matter, ability to communicate it, interest in students, and understanding of the college philosophy. As eligible applicants increase, so do questions about employment and certification requirements. Hiring practices have to date shown little concern for teaching proficiency (e.g., causing learning according to defined outcomes), but have generally depended on degrees, etc. This paper questions whether the procedure is non-discriminatory, whether the requirements beyond state credentialing relate directly to job performance. It discusses the possible impact on teacher certification and employment of Griggs vs Duke Power Company. Although this is an industrial case, subsequent judgments may alter traditional patterns in other areas by bringing an historical pattern in line with prevailing social realities or even beginning a new tradition. The court is unlikely to find credentialing, for instance, inherently discriminatory; the question seems clearly limited to requirements that tend to preserve existing patterns of discrimination or that do not clearly measure the applicant's ability to do the job. (If the courts consider credentials to be only licenses [with no elements of contract], they are outside the scope of Griggs.) Since the basic issue is discrimination in employment, any public agency must therefore justify its hiring practices by showing a rational connection between the requirements and the actual demands of the job. (HH)