Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC
73 L. Ed. 2d 721, 102 S. Ct. 3057 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer's unconditional offer of the job previously denied to a claimant, even without an offer of retroactive seniority, generally tolls the continuing accrual of backpay liability. The claimant's rejection of such an offer, absent special circumstances, indicates that the ongoing injury from the discrimination has ceased.
Facts:
- In June and July 1971, Judy Gaddis, Rebecca Starr, and Zettie Smith, all qualified women, applied for 'picker-packer' jobs at a Ford Motor Co. parts warehouse where no woman had ever worked in that capacity.
- Ford filled the three vacant positions with men, rejecting the women's applications.
- In response, Gaddis filed a sex discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- In January 1973, Gaddis and Starr were recalled to their former jobs at a nearby General Motors (GM) warehouse, where they began to accumulate seniority.
- In July 1973, Ford offered a single vacant position first to Gaddis and then to Starr.
- The offer did not include seniority retroactive to their 1971 applications.
- Both women declined the offer, in part because they did not want to forfeit the seniority and job security they had earned at GM.
- In 1974, the GM warehouse closed and Gaddis and Starr were laid off.
Procedural Posture:
- The EEOC sued Ford Motor Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.
- The District Court, as the trial court, found that Ford had unlawfully discriminated against the claimants and awarded them backpay from the date of the discriminatory act to the date of the court's order.
- The District Court specifically rejected Ford's argument that its backpay liability to Gaddis and Starr should have terminated when they rejected Ford's job offers in July 1973.
- Ford, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's judgment, holding that the job offer without retroactive seniority was 'incomplete and unacceptable' and did not stop the accrual of backpay.
- Ford petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted.
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 an employer's unconditional offer of the job previously denied, but without an offer of retroactive seniority, toll the accrual of backpay liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
Yes, an unconditional job offer without retroactive seniority tolls the continuing accrual of backpay liability. This rule best serves Title VII's primary objective of ending discrimination through voluntary compliance by giving employers a strong incentive to promptly make curative job offers. Requiring an offer of retroactive seniority would make hiring the claimant more costly and disruptive than hiring another applicant, thus discouraging compliance. The rule also aligns with Title VII's secondary goal of making victims whole, as claimants have a duty to mitigate damages by accepting substantially equivalent employment. By rejecting the offer, a claimant who has found other employment demonstrates that the ongoing economic harm from the initial discrimination has been extinguished. Furthermore, this approach protects innocent incumbent employees from being forced to sacrifice their earned seniority to a claimant who has not yet proven unlawful discrimination.
Dissenting - Justice Blackmun
No, an unconditional job offer without retroactive seniority does not automatically toll backpay liability, as the decision to award backpay should be left to the equitable discretion of the District Court. The majority creates a rigid rule that allows employers to make 'cheap offers' that victims cannot reasonably accept, thereby frustrating Title VII's purpose of making victims whole. Gaddis and Starr were faced with an 'intolerable choice': give up the job security and seniority they had earned elsewhere for a position at Ford with no seniority and a high risk of layoff. The majority's abstract economic reasoning ignores the real-world value of job security. The proper standard is to defer to the trial court's discretion to fashion a remedy that achieves a just result based on the specific circumstances of the case, which is what the lower courts correctly did here.
Analysis:
This decision significantly altered the landscape of Title VII remedies by establishing a clear, pro-employer rule for tolling backpay liability. It prioritizes the statutory goal of encouraging voluntary compliance and rapid resolution over the goal of ensuring a victim is made perfectly whole before a final judgment. The ruling provides employers a powerful tool to cap their largest potential monetary liability by making a job offer, thereby shifting significant risk onto the discrimination claimant. Claimants are forced to choose between accepting an incomplete remedy or forgoing future backpay while pursuing a potentially long and uncertain litigation for a complete remedy.
Unlock the full brief for Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC