Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To rebut a plaintiff's prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination under Title VII, an employer only needs to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment practice; the employer is not required to prove its practice is the one that maximizes the hiring of minority candidates.
Facts:
- Furnco Construction Corp. (Furnco), a company specializing in relining steel mill blast furnaces with firebrick, did not maintain a permanent workforce of bricklayers.
- For an August 1971 job with Interlake, Inc., Furnco's job superintendent, Joseph Dacies, was responsible for hiring a competent work force.
- Dacies's hiring practice was not to accept applications at the jobsite gate but to hire only bricklayers whom he knew to be experienced and competent, or those who were recommended to him as such.
- Respondents Donald Samuels, Sylvester Nemhard, and William Smith were three fully qualified black bricklayers who sought employment by appearing at the jobsite gate.
- Dacies did not hire Samuels or Nemhard, and only hired Smith late in the project after first hiring numerous white bricklayers he knew personally.
- Furnco had a self-imposed affirmative action plan to hire black bricklayers in numbers exceeding their percentage in the local union.
- Ultimately, 13.3% of the total man-days on the Interlake job were worked by black bricklayers, while the relevant labor force was 5.7% minority.
- The job required highly skilled and experienced firebricklayers to ensure safety and efficiency, as improper work could lead to substantial financial losses and safety hazards.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Samuels, Sylvester Nemhard, and William Smith sued Furnco Construction Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging racial discrimination in violation of Title VII.
- After a bench trial, the District Court, a court of first instance, entered judgment for Furnco, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove discrimination and that Furnco's hiring policies were justified by business necessity.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's judgment, holding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of discrimination which Furnco, as appellee, had failed to rebut.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a Title VII disparate treatment case, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, does the employer successfully rebut it by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its hiring practice, even if that practice did not maximize the consideration of minority applicants?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. An employer successfully rebuts a prima facie case of discrimination by articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. The purpose of the McDonnell Douglas framework is to determine whether an employer's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, which creates an inference of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to produce evidence of a legitimate business reason for its decision. Here, Furnco's stated reason for its hiring practice—the need to hire the most experienced and competent firebricklayers for a dangerous and time-sensitive job—was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification. The Court of Appeals erred by imposing an additional requirement that Furnco's hiring practices must also be the method that maximizes the consideration of minority applicants. Title VII does not require an employer to adopt the 'best' hiring procedures or to restructure its practices to maximize minority hiring. While statistics showing a racially balanced workforce cannot immunize an employer from liability for specific discriminatory acts, such evidence is relevant and probative on the issue of the employer's motive and intent.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Marshall
Yes. The majority is correct that, in a disparate treatment claim under McDonnell Douglas, the case must be remanded for the Court of Appeals to properly assess whether Furnco's articulated business reason rebutted the plaintiffs' prima facie case. However, the Court's opinion appears to improperly foreclose the plaintiffs' alternative claim that Furnco's hiring practice had a disparate impact under the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. standard. A facially neutral practice, such as hiring primarily from a list of past employees known to a foreman, can violate Title VII if it disproportionately excludes a protected group, unless justified by business necessity. An employer cannot be relieved of responsibility for a discriminatory primary hiring practice simply by using other methods to augment minority representation. The Court of Appeals never properly addressed the disparate impact claim, and the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to pursue this theory on remand.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the employer's burden in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for Title VII disparate treatment claims. The Court established that the employer's burden is one of production, not persuasion; it need only 'articulate' a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, not prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. By rejecting the appellate court's attempt to mandate the 'best' or most inclusive hiring practices, the decision limits judicial intervention into business operations and gives employers more discretion in their hiring methods. The ruling also affirms that workforce statistics are relevant evidence of non-discriminatory intent, though not a complete shield against individual discrimination claims.
Unlock the full brief for Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters