Source: http://www.joeldufresnecase.com/supreme-court-opinions-federal/affirmative-action-opinions/firefighters-local-union-no-1784-v-stotts
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 18:04:10+00:00

Document:
* Together with No. 82-229, Memphis Fire Department et al. v. Stotts et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
1. The Memphis Fire Department is divided into several bureaus, including firefighting, alarm office, administration, apparatus, maintenance, and fire prevention. Of the positions covered by the original injunction, all but one were in the firefighting bureau.
2. The City ultimately laid off 24 privates, 3 of whom were black. Had the seniority system been followed, 6 blacks would have been among the 24 privates laid off. Thus, three white employees were laid off as a direct result of the District Court's order. The number of whites demoted as a result of the order is not clear from the record before us.
4. Of course, if layoffs become necessary, both the City and respondents will be affected by the modified decree, the City because it will be unable to apply its seniority system, respondents because they will be given greater protection than they would otherwise receive under that system. Moreover, the City will be immediately affected by the modification even though no layoff is currently pending. If the lower courts' ruling is left intact, the City will no longer be able to promise current or future employees that layoffs will be conducted solely on the basis of seniority. Against its will, the City has been deprived of the power to offer its employees one of the benefits that make employment with the City attractive to many workers. Seniority has traditionally been, and continues to be, a matter of great concern to American workers.
5. Since the District Court's order precludes the City from reducing the percentage of black employees holding particular jobs in the event of a layoff or reduction in rank, and since competitive seniority is the basis for determining who will be laid off or bumped down, there is some question whether, in light of the judgment below, the City could legally restore to the laid-off employees the competitive seniority they had before the layoffs without violating the order.
6. The present case is distinguishable from University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981), on which the dissent relies, in that the defendant in Camenisch was not a party to a decree that had been modified by the lower court. When the injunction in that case expired, the defendant was in all respects restored to its pre-injunction status. Here, the City is faced with a modified consent decree that prevents it from applying its seniority system in the manner that it chooses.
7. Respondents contend that the memorandum of understanding between the Union and the City is unenforceable under state law, citing Fulenwider v. Firefighters Assn. Local Union. 1784, 649 S.W.2d 268 (Tenn.1982). However, the validity of that memorandum under state law is unimportant for purposes of the issues presented in this case. First, the Court of Appeals assumed that the memorandum was valid in reaching its decision. 679 F.2d at 564, n. 20. Since we are reviewing that decision, we are free to assume the same. Moreover, even if the memorandum is unenforceable, the City's seniority system is still in place. The City unilaterally adopted the seniority system city-wide in 1973. That policy was incorporated into the memorandum of understanding with the Firefighters Union in 1975, but its city-wide effect, including its application to the Fire Department, continues irrespective of the status of the memorandum.
9. The dissent seems to suggest, post at 611, and n. 9, and JUSTICE STEVENS expressly states, post at 590, that Title VII is irrelevant in determining whether the District Court acted properly in modifying the consent decree. However, this was Title VII litigation, and in affirming modifications of the decree, the Court of Appeals relied extensively on what it considered to be its authority under Title VII. That is the posture in which the cases come to us. Furthermore, the District Court's authority to impose a modification of a decree is not wholly dependent on the decree.
11. Lower courts have uniformly held that relief for actual victims does not extend to bumping employees previously occupying jobs. See, e.g., Patterson v. American Tobacco Co., 535 F.2d 257, 267 (CA4), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 920 (1976); Local 189, United Papermakers and Paperworkers v. United States, 416 F.2d 980, 988 (CA5 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 919 (1970).
13. See H.R.Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 72-73 (1963) (minority report); 110 Cong.Rec. 4764 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Ervin and Sen. Hill); id. at 5092, 7418-7420 (remarks of Sen. Robertson); id. at 8500 (remarks of Sen. Smathers); id. at 9034-9035 (remarks of Sen. Stennis and Sen. Tower).
14. Senators Clark and Case were the bipartisan "captains" of Title VII. We have previously recognized the authoritative nature of their interpretative memorandum. American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 73 (1982); Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 352 (1977).
16. Neither does it suffice to rely on the District Court's remedial authority under §§ 1981 and 1983. Under those sections, relief is authorized only when there is proof or admission of intentional discrimination. Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976); General Building Contractors Assn. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375 (1982). Neither precondition was satisfied here.
17. The Court of Appeals also suggested that, under United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114-115 (1932), the decree properly was modified pursuant to the District Court's equity jurisdiction. But Swift cannot be read as authorizing a court to impose a modification of a decree that runs counter to statutory policy, see n. 9, supra, here §§ 703(h) and 706(g) of Title VII.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.