Bazemore v. Friday
92 L. Ed. 2d 315, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 131, 478 U.S. 385 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer violates Title VII by perpetuating salary disparities that began before the statute's effective date, as each unequal paycheck constitutes a new and actionable wrong. However, a state's affirmative constitutional duty to dismantle a prior system of de jure segregation in voluntary clubs is satisfied by adopting a race-neutral admissions policy, even if racial imbalances persist due to private choice.
Facts:
- Prior to August 1, 1965, the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service (Extension Service) was formally segregated into a white branch and a 'Negro branch'.
- The Extension Service paid black employees in the 'Negro branch' systematically lower salaries than white employees in comparable positions.
- On August 1, 1965, the Extension Service merged its segregated branches into a single organization.
- Following the merger, salary disparities between black and white employees continued, and these disparities were still present when Title VII was made applicable to public employers on March 24, 1972.
- The Extension Service also organized and serviced 4-H and Extension Homemaker Clubs, which were segregated by race prior to 1965.
- After 1965, the Extension Service implemented a neutral, 'freedom-of-choice' policy, making all clubs officially open to members of all races.
- Despite the open policy, many clubs remained de facto single-race, with a large number of all-white and all-black clubs continuing to exist in racially mixed communities.
Procedural Posture:
- Black employees and service recipients sued officials of the North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service and several County Commissioners in U.S. District Court, alleging racial discrimination.
- The United States intervened as a plaintiff, alleging violations of the Constitution and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motions to certify the case as a class action.
- After a bench trial, the District Court found for the defendants on all claims, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a pattern or practice of discrimination.
- The private petitioners and the United States appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public employer violate Title VII by perpetuating salary disparities that originated before the Act's effective date, and does its affirmative duty to desegregate state-sponsored voluntary clubs, under the Fourteenth Amendment, require more than adopting a race-neutral admissions policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (adopting reasoning from Justice Brennan for the salary issue and Justice White for the clubs issue)
On the salary issue, Yes. On the clubs issue, No. A public employer violates Title VII by continuing salary disparities that originated prior to the Act’s effective date because each paycheck delivering less compensation to a black employee than a similarly situated white employee is a distinct, actionable violation. The Court of Appeals erred in holding that pre-Act discrimination did not need to be remedied and in rejecting the petitioners' statistical evidence, such as multiple regression analyses, merely because it did not account for every possible variable. The failure to include all variables affects the probativeness of a regression analysis, not its admissibility. On the clubs issue, the state’s constitutional duty to desegregate voluntary associations like 4-H clubs is satisfied by ceasing prior discriminatory practices and adopting a genuinely race-neutral admissions policy. Unlike the compulsory context of public schools in Green v. School Board, the voluntary nature of these clubs means the state is not required to take further affirmative steps to achieve racial balance, as any remaining segregation results from private choice, not state action.
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
On the clubs issue, Yes. The state's affirmative duty to desegregate its clubs requires more than simply adopting a neutral admissions policy. The majority wrongly distinguishes this case from Green v. School Board of New Kent County. When a state has engaged in long-standing de jure segregation, it has an affirmative duty to dismantle that system 'root and branch' and eliminate its effects. A 'freedom of choice' plan is insufficient if it fails to produce integration, as evidenced by the large number of single-race clubs that persisted years after the official policy change. The state’s obligation to desegregate extends to all state-sponsored activities, including voluntary public amenities, not just compulsory ones like education.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing two distinct legal principles. For Title VII pay discrimination, Bazemore firmly established the 'continuing violation' theory, holding that pre-Act discriminatory pay systems that result in disparate paychecks after the Act's effective date are fully actionable. This prevents employers from using the statute of limitations as a shield for long-standing pay inequities. Conversely, in the realm of desegregation, the decision created a crucial distinction between compulsory state activities (like public schooling) and voluntary ones (like state-sponsored clubs), setting a lower constitutional bar for remedying past segregation in the latter context, thereby limiting the reach of the affirmative duties established in cases like Green.
Unlock the full brief for Bazemore v. Friday