Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), a district court's finding of discriminatory intent in a Title VII case challenging a seniority system is a pure question of fact, subject to the 'clearly erroneous' standard of review. An appellate court may not conduct an independent de novo review of the evidence to make its own finding on this ultimate issue.
Facts:
- Pullman-Standard's manufacturing plant in Bessemer, Alabama, was unionized in the early 1940s.
- In 1941, the United Steelworkers of America (USW) was elected to represent most production employees, while the International Association of Machinists (IAM) represented a separate unit that eventually became all-white.
- Prior to 1965, Pullman-Standard openly pursued a racially discriminatory policy of job assignments, segregating Black employees into less desirable departments and jobs.
- In 1954, Pullman-Standard and USW adopted a seniority system where an employee's seniority was measured by their length of continuous service within a specific department.
- Under this system, employees who transferred to a new department forfeited all seniority they had accrued, effectively locking them into their current department.
- This departmental seniority system perpetuated the effects of the company's past discriminatory job assignments by making it disadvantageous for Black employees to transfer out of the less desirable departments to which they had been segregated.
Procedural Posture:
- Louis Swint and other Black employees (Respondents) sued Pullman-Standard and the USW (Petitioners) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for violations of Title VII.
- The District Court initially held a trial and found that the seniority system did not violate Title VII.
- The employees appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
- On remand, the District Court held a new trial limited to the question of whether the seniority system was maintained with discriminatory intent and again found in favor of Pullman-Standard and the USW.
- The employees appealed for a second time to the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit again reversed, concluding that the seniority system was the result of an intent to discriminate and was therefore not protected by § 703(h) of Title VII.
- Pullman-Standard and the USW successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the Fifth Circuit's decision.
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 court of appeals err when it makes an independent determination of discriminatory intent under Title VII § 703(h) rather than applying the 'clearly erroneous' standard of review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) to the district court's factual findings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice White
Yes. A district court's finding on whether a seniority system's differential impact reflects a discriminatory intent is a pure question of fact, subject to the 'clearly erroneous' standard of review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). Rule 52(a) does not distinguish between 'ultimate' and 'subsidiary' facts; all findings of fact must be reviewed with deference. The issue of discriminatory intent under § 703(h) requires a finding of actual motive, which is a classic factual inquiry for the trial court, not a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact for an appellate court to decide independently. The Fifth Circuit erred by treating discriminatory intent as an 'ultimate fact' subject to its own independent review. When the Court of Appeals found that the District Court had made a legal error by failing to consider certain evidence (the IAM's motives), the proper remedy was to remand the case for new findings under the correct legal standard, not for the appellate court to engage in its own fact-finding.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
No. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the 'clearly erroneous' standard and was justified in reversing the District Court and rendering judgment without a remand. The appellate court explicitly stated it was left with the 'definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made,' which is the textbook definition of the 'clearly erroneous' standard. The court properly found that the District Court committed legal errors by failing to consider the qualitative differences in jobs and by ignoring the IAM's discriminatory motives, which removed the findings from the protection of Rule 52(a). Because the case was based almost entirely on documentary evidence and the record permitted only one conclusion—that there was discriminatory intent—the Court of Appeals was correct to resolve the issue itself in the interest of judicial economy rather than remanding for a fourth trial.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. The Court's opinion correctly states the standard of review under Rule 52(a). I join the opinion except for its preliminary comments on the burden of proof for challenging a seniority system under Title VII, which are inconsistent with views I have expressed in other cases.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and strengthens the division of labor between trial and appellate courts in the federal system. By classifying 'discriminatory intent' as a pure question of fact, the decision limits the power of appellate courts to second-guess trial court findings in discrimination cases. This holding reinforces the trial court's role as the primary fact-finder and makes it more difficult for parties who lose on the issue of intent at trial to obtain a reversal on appeal. The ruling mandates that appellate courts show significant deference to the trial judge's findings on motive and intent, reversing only for clear error rather than simple disagreement.
Unlock the full brief for Pullman-Standard v. Swint