Legal Document

438 U.S. 567 98 Supreme Court Reporter 2943 57 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 957 FURNCO CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner,v.William WATERS et al. Number 77-369. Argued April 17, 1978. Decided June 29, Syllabus Petitioner corporation specializes in relining blast furnaces with "firebrick." It maintains no permanent force of bricklayers but delegates to the superintendent a particular job task hiring work force. Respondents, three black bricklayers, sought employment petitioner on job, two them, though fully qualified, were never offered employment, and third was hired only long after he had initially applied. The superintendent, pursuant industry practice, did not accept applications at jobsite who knew experienced competent or been recommended him as similarly skilled. Respondents brought suit against claiming discrimination violation Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964. District held, inter alia, that respondents proved case under McDonnell Douglas Corporation versus Green, 411 792, 93 1817, 36 668, petitioner's practices justified "business necessity" they required for safe efficient operation business. Appeals reversed, holding made out prima facie Douglas, which effectively rebutted. Disagreeing Court's finding business necessity, devised procedure whereby would take written applications, inquiry qualifications experience, then check, evaluate, compare those claims experience other whom already acquainted, thereby allowing consider more minority applicants. Held: erred its treatment nature evidence necessary rebut substituting own judgment prope an employer do violate VII. Pp. 575-580. (a) While concluding matter law court went awry apparently equating such showing ultimate fact discriminatory refusal hire VII, court's imposition method enabling consider, perhaps hire, employees finds support either VII's purpose. Courts may impose remedy least until has proved, here none reasoning Appeals. 575-578. (b) also appears improperly have concluded once out, statistics by show racially balanced totally irrelevant question motive. A is equivalent factual simply proof actions taken from animus can be inferred because absence any explanation it likely than based impermissible considerations. employer, therefore, must allowed some latitude introduce bearing his Thus, although could sufficient demonstrate conclusively discriminatorily motivated, entitled racial mix when making determination motivation, should likewise give similar consideration further proceedings. 579-580. 551 Federal Reporter, 2nd 1085, reversed remanded. Joel Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Kaplan, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Judson Miner, respondents. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 are Furnco Construction Two employment. employed Upon adverse findings entered bench trial, Northern Illinois held claim "disparate treatment" theory 668 (1973), impact" Griggs Duke Power Co., 401 424, 91 849, 28 158 (1971). Seventh Circuit, rebutted, 1085 (1977). We granted certiorari important questions raised this regarding exact scope case. 434 996, 632, 54 490 Having latter question, we reverse remand proceedings consistent opinion. 2 * few facts serious dispute. Furnco, within meaning §§ 701(b) (h) 1964 Act, 42 Code KF62 2000e(b) (1970 ed., Supp. V), refractory installation steel mills and, particularly, rehabilitation what called trade does not, however, maintain bricklayers. Rath r, hires specific securing In August 1971, contracted Interlake, Inc., reline one furnaces. Joseph Dacies, since 1965, placed charge given attendant responsibilities. He jobsite, instead persons type first four all white, successive days August, 26th 27th, September, 7th 8th. On September 9 bricklayer. By 13, 8 black; 7 employed, another 23, 17 payroll, again included number.1 From October 12 18, 6 black, including respondent Smith, worked Dacies previously applied somewhat earlier. Samuels Nemhard hired, qualified attempted secure appearing gate. Out total 1,819 man-days Interlake 242, 13.3%, 3 Many remaining found inferences drawn therefrom dispute between parties, expressly clearly erroneous. elaborated length "critical" necessity insuring highly firebricklayers employed. Improper untimely result substantial losses both forced shut down furnace lay off during paid fixed price time period. addition, might shoddy slow process down, necessitate costly future maintenance loss production employee layoffs; diminish Furnco's reputation ability future; even create safety hazards, leading explosions like. App. Pet. Certiorari A13-A15. These considerations engage on-the-job training gate, provide adequate matching requirements assuring applicants sufficiently skilled capable. Id., A18-A19. Furthermore, there these policies pretext exclude otherwise illegitimate disproportionate impact effect A17-A18. late 1969 through 1973, 5.7% relevant labor group members, see 41 Regulations § 60-11 seq. (1977),2 while, mentioned before, 13.3% 4 Because above following established practice industry, most known work. others being general foreman, (a black), area, General Manager John Wright. Wright instructed employ, far possible, 16% policy due self-imposed affirmative-action plan insure Cook County numbers substantially excess their percentage local union,3 recommended, effort good faith, several filed negotiations settlement recently broken n.3, supra. 5 findings, failed make doctrine gate neutral face effect. A20-A21. prove (1973). A21. entirely clear whether thought A20-A21, left doubt business, "not used Negroes." if "Not Plaintiffs establish discriminated them basis race constituted retaliatory conduct Defendant proven to. cross-examination direct evidence, beyond reasonable regard job."4 A22. supra, 802, "historical inequality workers"5 record reveal white rejected argument shown fared better That disagreed contention, adopted, "the importance selecting people whose capability demonstrated defendant's brick 'legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason' plaintiffs." F.2d, 1088. Instead, appellate proceeded devise appropriate saying "[i]t seems us middle ground immediate decisions spot seeking among superintendent." Ibid. This course, according Appeals, acquainted. gone too proper claimed chosen VII.6 II Atlantic agree approach analysis contained supra.7 think Douglas. w plaintiff "(i) belongs minority; (ii) applicants; (iii) that, despite qualifications, rejected; (iv) rejection, position remained open continued seek complainant's qualifications." U.S., S.Ct., 1824 (footnote omitted). 10 This, intended inflexible rule, note "[t]he necessarily will vary cases, specification . applicable every respect differing situations." 802 n. 1824. See Teamsters States, 431 324, 358, 97 1843, 1866, 52 396 But carries initial burden infer, remain unexplained, "based criterion illegal Act." 1866. id., 335 15, 1854. And carried proving members everything power apply employment; conceded jobs about open;8 Smith later was; qualifications. B 11 awry, VII; quite different difference resolution read opinion, procedures reasonably related achievement legitimate purpose, allows largest number second requirement purpose central focus always treating "some less favorably race, color, religion, sex, national origin." suggested pursuing inquiry, rigid, mechanized, ritualistic. Rather merely sensible, orderly way evaluate light common bears critical discrimination. raises inference presume acts, factors. 358 44, willing largely know our often act arbitrary manner, without underlying reasons, especially setting. reasons rejecting applicant eliminated possible employer's actions, generally assume acts reason, decision race. 13 When understood apparent shifts consideration, To need pursued course enable achieve goal allow applications. prohibits having selected proscribed duty adopt maximizes employees. dispel "articulate legitimate, reason employee's rejection." 14 dangers embarking charted here, where requires businesses perceives "best" procedures, nowhere evident very Not satisfactorily, nothing indicate "haphazard, arbitrary, subjective" method, criticized deficient exactly reasons. employers restructure practices, unless mandated so Congress attempt it. 15 say, justification ends inquiry. opportunity proffered noted 804-805, 1825-1826, variety forms. stating disagreement conclusion "legitimate, reason" refusing respondents, premised view discussed above. conclude discrimination, enabled courts Contract 16 employ free doubt, ng 1089. undoubtedly correct trier original rejection motivated: cannot immunize liability As said 341-342, 1857: "[T]he upon company engaged well effective date company's changes promotion little comfort victims earlier post-Act erase previous obligation afford relief suffered it." 18 Albemarle Paper Moody, 422 405, 412-413, 95 2362, 2369-2370, 45 280 (1975). cavil imposed equal each regardless applicant's proportionately represented 430, 853; McDonald Santa Fe Trail Transportation 427 273, 279, 96 2574, 2578, 49 493 (1976). 19 however. Rather, infer bottomed Proof disproportionately high wholly issue intent yet decided. say absolutely probative value determining unexplained motivated. neither nor trying motivation. statistical III 20 parties press large alternative theories defense,9 directly addressed Given present posture case, matters still preserved review best decided instance. Accordingly, declined address here. remanded ordered 21 MARSHALL, BRENNAN joins, concurring part dissenting part. 22 arise ways. 335-336, 1854, An individual allege subjected victim facially group. today concludes disparate-treatment controlled 23 Under establishes disparate 24 25 Once [plaintiff's] 26 properly considerat ons. court, focused employ. & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions therefore address, standards, rebutted respondents' treatment. presented. ante, 580, 9. 27 Where actually falls harshly group, thus cases claim. See, e. g., Teamsters, 336 349, 1854 1861; Dothard Rawlinson, 433 321, 329, 2720, 53 786 (1977); Electric Gilbert, 429 125, 137, 401, 408, 50 343 (1976); 422, 425, 2373, 2375, (1975); 430-432, 853-854, set disparate-impact claim, actuality "operates 431, 853. "a manifest relationship question." 432, 854. "touchstone necessity," 853, "must performance survive challenge." 332, 14, 2728. principle, limiting prior working person, hear word mouth invalid impacts protected necessity. 29 There today's inconsistent decisions. dissent, decision, 575, foreclose litigation impact. list foreman foreclosed Negroes vast majority jobs. Although considerable methods, assert use methods augment representation answer primary discriminatory. 30 relieved responsibility past undertaking affirmative action obtain proportional reaffirms today, "company's 1857; 579. Therefore, workers primarily would, Griggs, contains uses addition l increase hired.* 31 assumes affirmed assumption. disposed analysis, occasion pertaining discuss 1089-1090 (1977), discussion defeat Negro members. express prevail presented presently before us, believe contend blacks "hired," "transferred" job. Brief 7-8. Both spoke "hiring" parts point persuade mischaracterization. study conducted 1973 union matched members' names membership black. approximately 500 3,800 excluded years completed A16 n.1. abuse discretion, dealing merits rely proportions force, permit introduction testimony. event prejudice admit showed 13.7% while 20% individuals 1090 According Court, program initiated performed 1969-1970 charges pending appeal parallel federal adjudicated. A15; Batiste Corp., 503 447 (CA7 1974). certai plaintiffs fired valid insubordination poor workmanship. A17-A19. erroneous, plaintiffs. 1087-1088. rulings challenged stated: "The historical refuse seeker approved containing How else able overcome imbalance craft, itself discrimination?" petition questions: "1. Whether reversing hiring, demonstrating presence "2. find guilty alleged "3. prospective subjective substitutes constitutes reasons." 2. involve tests, dealt (1971), (1975), particularized height weight specifications considered 2727, "pattern practice" like raise sort purposes sense. places permissible. example, argue propriety referred insider, bricklayer, Dacies' abstract, 19-26. particular, "list" prepared, allegedly worked, worked. Exclusion Samuels, hand, vigorously disputes neatly into various components argues familiar concerted speak fact, blacks, indicating so-called certainly exclusive source potential white. notion put ceiling maximum hire. asserts conclusion. evidence. existence list, 1086, relying either. outlined text, remand, pursue contentions preserved. Of leaves violated theory. 581

Classification Label: 1