American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson
71 L. Ed. 2d 748, 102 S. Ct. 1534, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 32 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 703(h) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects bona fide seniority systems from being deemed unlawful employment practices merely due to their discriminatory impact, applies to all such systems, regardless of whether they were adopted before or after the Act's effective date. To invalidate a bona fide seniority system, a plaintiff must prove it was created or maintained with an actual intent to discriminate.
Facts:
- Prior to 1963, American Tobacco Co. and its union engaged in overt racial discrimination, maintaining segregated union locals and assigning Black employees to lower-paying prefabrication jobs while reserving higher-paying fabrication jobs for white employees.
- Transferring from a prefabrication to a fabrication department required an employee to forfeit all accumulated seniority.
- In 1963, under government pressure, the company abolished departmental seniority for plantwide seniority, but promotions then required seniority plus subjective qualifications determined by supervisors.
- Between 1963 and 1968, virtually all vacancies in the desirable fabrication departments were filled by white employees.
- In 1968, the company and union agreed to establish nine 'lines of progression' for promotions, which were ratified in 1969.
- Six of these lines are at issue: four linked nearly all-white top jobs with all-white bottom jobs in fabrication departments, and two linked all-black top jobs with all-black bottom jobs in prefabrication departments.
- Under this system, an employee was not eligible for a top job in a line until they had worked in the corresponding bottom job, effectively perpetuating the prior racial segregation of departments.
Procedural Posture:
- John Patterson and other Black employees filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in 1973 against American Tobacco Co. and its union, alleging violations of Title VII.
- A similar suit filed by the EEOC was consolidated with the employees' action.
- The District Court held that the company's lines of progression violated Title VII because they perpetuated past discrimination and were not justified by business necessity.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision on liability.
- After the Supreme Court's decision in Teamsters v. United States, the defendants moved the District Court to vacate its prior orders.
- The District Court denied the motion, finding the seniority system was not 'bona fide' under the Teamsters standard.
- A panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed, and upon rehearing the case en banc, the full court held that the immunity of § 703(h) applies only to seniority systems that were in existence at the time of Title VII's effective date.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of § 703(h).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the protection afforded to bona fide seniority systems under Section 703(h) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 limited to systems adopted prior to the Act's effective date?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
No. The protection for bona fide seniority systems under § 703(h) is not limited to those adopted before the Civil Rights Act's effective date; it immunizes all bona fide seniority systems from disparate impact challenges unless there is proof of discriminatory purpose. The plain language of § 703(h) makes no distinction between pre-Act and post-Act seniority systems, unlike other sections of Title VII that contain specific grandfather clauses. Reading such a limitation into the statute would be contrary to its text, which functions as a definition of what is not an illegal practice, rather than as a time-limited exemption. The legislative history is inconclusive and does not support limiting the provision to pre-existing systems. Furthermore, prior decisions like Teamsters v. United States have established that § 703(h) immunizes all bona fide systems, and creating a distinction based on adoption date would run counter to the national labor policy that favors collective bargaining and gives seniority provisions overriding importance.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The protection of § 703(h) should be limited and should not shield the post-Act adoption of a seniority system from a disparate impact challenge under Griggs. The plain language of the statute states it is not unlawful for an employer to 'apply' different standards pursuant to a seniority system; it says nothing about shielding the 'adoption' of such a system. The legislative history demonstrates that Congress's intent was to protect the vested expectations of employees under existing seniority systems, not to permit the creation of new systems that perpetuate discrimination. Exemptions to a broad remedial statute like Title VII should be construed narrowly, and the Court's interpretation creates an unwarranted loophole that undermines the Act's purpose.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The protection of § 703(h) should be limited because a seniority system adopted after the enactment of Title VII that has a discriminatory impact not justified by business necessity cannot be considered 'bona fide' and is therefore not entitled to § 703(h) protection in the first place. Section 703(h) provides an affirmative defense for a 'bona fide' system, but a system that is unlawful at the time of its adoption under the Griggs disparate impact standard fails this threshold requirement. The 'intent' proviso in § 703(h) was meant to limit protection for pre-Act systems, not to define the standard for challenging the adoption of post-Act systems. Since the lower court found the lines of progression had an unjustified disparate impact, they are not bona fide, and § 703(h) does not apply.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the protections for seniority systems under Title VII, solidifying the precedent set in Teamsters. By extending § 703(h)'s immunity to systems created after 1964, the Court makes it substantially more difficult for plaintiffs to challenge seniority plans that perpetuate past discrimination. The ruling elevates the importance of showing discriminatory intent over discriminatory effect in this context, prioritizing the stability of collectively bargained seniority rights over the use of disparate impact theory to remedy systemic inequality. This makes challenges to seniority systems, a cornerstone of many labor agreements, far less likely to succeed.
