McDonald et al. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. et al.
427 U.S. 273 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibit racial discrimination in private employment against all individuals, including white persons. An employer may not discipline employees of one race for misconduct while failing to discipline employees of another race for comparable misconduct.
Facts:
- L. N. McDonald and Raymond L. Laird, both white, were employees of Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.
- Charles Jackson, a black man, was also an employee of Santa Fe.
- On September 26, 1970, Santa Fe charged McDonald, Laird, and Jackson with misappropriating 60 one-gallon cans of antifreeze from a company shipment.
- Six days later, Santa Fe fired McDonald and Laird for the alleged offense.
- Santa Fe did not fire Jackson, who was similarly charged with the same misconduct.
- McDonald and Laird filed a grievance with their union, International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 988, but the grievance proceedings failed to provide them with any relief.
Procedural Posture:
- L. N. McDonald and Raymond L. Laird sued Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. and Teamsters Local 988 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, a federal trial court.
- The complaint alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the pleadings.
- McDonald and Laird, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's dismissal in a per curiam opinion.
- 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:
Do Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibit an employer from discharging white employees for misappropriating company property while retaining a black employee charged with the same offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
Yes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibit racial discrimination against white persons in private employment under the same standards as they prohibit discrimination against non-white persons. The plain language of Title VII prohibits discrimination against 'any individual' because of race, and its legislative history confirms the intent to protect all Americans, including whites. While an employer has the right to discharge employees for criminal conduct, this criterion must be 'applied alike to members of all races.' An employer's stated reason for discharge, such as theft, may be deemed a pretext for discrimination if it is not applied equally to employees of all races. Similarly, the Court's analysis of the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the origin of § 1981, reveals that Congress intended it to protect 'all persons,' including white citizens, from racial discrimination in the making and enforcing of contracts, which includes employment.
Dissenting in part - Mr. Justice White
Justices White and Rehnquist joined the majority's opinion regarding the Title VII claim but dissented from the holding regarding 42 U.S.C. § 1981. They did not provide specific reasoning in this case but incorporated by reference the dissent in Runyon v. McCrary, which argued that § 1981 was not intended to prohibit discrimination in the context of private employment.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established that federal anti-discrimination laws, specifically Title VII and § 1981, are colorblind and prohibit racial discrimination against any group, including whites. It clarified that claims of 'reverse discrimination' are cognizable under these statutes. The ruling reinforces the principle from McDonnell Douglas that an employer's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for an adverse employment action can be challenged as pretextual by showing that the employer's disciplinary practices are not applied even-handedly across racial lines. This case significantly impacts employment law by requiring employers to maintain strict consistency in disciplinary actions for employees who engage in comparable misconduct, regardless of their race.
Unlock the full brief for McDonald et al. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. et al.