Legal Document

467 U.S. 69 104 S.Ct. 2229 81 L.Ed.2d 59 Elizabeth Anderson HISHON, Petitioner,v.KING & SPALDING. No. 82-940. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Oct. 31, 1983. Decided May 22, 1984. Syllabus Petitioner, a woman lawyer, was employed in 1972 as an associate with respondent law firm, general partnership, but her employment terminated 1979 after decided not to invite become partner. Petitioner filed charge Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that had discriminated against on basis sex violation Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964. After Commission issued notice right sue, petitioner brought this action Federal District under VII. Her complaint included allegations used possibility ultimate partnership recruiting device induce and other young lawyers associates at firm; represented advancement five or six years "a matter course" for who received satisfactory evaluations would be considered "on fair equal basis"; she relied these representations when accepted respondent; respondent's promise consider "fair basis" created binding contract; it failed The dismissed ground inapplicable selection partners by Appeals affirmed. Held: Petitioner's states claim cognizable VII, therefore is entitled day court prove allegations. Pp. 73-79. (a) Once contractual relationship established, provisions attach, forbidding unlawful discrimination "terms, conditions, privileges employment," which clearly include benefits are part contract. If evidence trial establishes petitioner's allegation parties contracted have term, condition, privilege employment. Independent alleged contract, then bind statute provides, i.e., without regard sex. Moreover, employer may provide its employees no obligation furnish any express implied Such benefit, though employment, qualify "privilege" granted withheld discriminatory fashion. 73-76. (b) Even if correct assertion invitation itself offer nonetheless apply. benefit plaintiff denied need fall within VII's protection; only It also consequence necessarily ends upon elevation partnership; accrue before person's completed relationship. Nor does legislative history support per se exemption decisions from scrutiny. And has shown how application case infringe constitutional rights expression association. "[i] nvidious private characterized form exercising freedom association protected First Amendment, never been accorded affirmative protections." Norwood v. Harrison, 413 455, 470, 93 2804, 2813, 37 723. 77-78. 678 F.2d 1022 (11th Cir.1982), reversed remanded. Emmet J. Bondurant, II, Atlanta, Ga., petitioner. Paul M. Bator, Cambridge, Mass., amicus curiae. Charles Morgan, Jr., Washington, D.C., respondent. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 We certiorari determine whether properly alleging petitioner, lawyer associate, 2 * A. 3 In Hishon position respondent, large Atlanta firm established partnership. When suit 1980, more than 50 approximately attorneys associates. Up time, ever served partner firm. 4 alleges prospect important factor initial decision accept She According complaint, "who receive[d] evaluations" were promoted basis." further 5 1978 rejected admission one year later, again declined partner.1 passed over notified begin seeking elsewhere. December 1979. B 6 November 19, 1979, 1964, 78 Stat. 241, amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Ten days later February 27, Northern Georgia. sought declaratory injunctive relief, backpay, compensatory damages "in lieu reinstatement promotion partnership." This, course, negates specific performance contract alleged. 7 partnership.2 24 FEP Cases 1303 (1980). A divided panel Eleventh Circuit (1982). certiorari, 459 1169, 103 813, 74 1012 (1983), we reverse. II 8 At stage litigation, must true. dismiss clear relief could set facts proved consistent Conley Gibson, 355 41, 45-46 (1957). issue us state relevant portion provides follows: 9 "(a) shall practice employer— 10 "(1) fail refuse hire discharge individual, otherwise discriminate individual respect his compensation, terms, because such individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin." 2000e-2(a) (emphasis added). 11 "employer" whom addressed.3 asserts consideration employment" respondent.4 See 2000e-2(a)(1). correct, base adverse "race, 12 attach govern certain aspects relationship.5 context written oral, formal informal; informal arise simple act handing job applicant shovel providing workplace. triggers provision governing employment." turn forbids 13 Because underlying contractual, follows Here, essence made partnership.6 Indeed, allegedly key induced lead same result. 14 made, however, An many "privileg[e]" parcel doled out fashion, even free simply all. Those comprise "incidents S.Rep. 867, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., (1964),7 "an aspect between employees," Chemical Alkali Workers Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 157, 178, 92 383, 397, 30 341 (1971),8 afforded manner contrary 15 Several conclusion opportunity associate's status employee independent associates' contracts. regularly expect end their "apprenticeships," appears outside routinely so considered.9 Thus, linked directly employee, linkage far coincidental: explicitly join importance lawyer's underscored they elected partners. These allegations, trial, suffice show accordingly 16 Respondent contends purposes First, entails change "employee" "employer." However, apply preclude becomes Pension benefits, example, terminates. Arizona Governing Committee Tax Deferred Annuity Compensation Plans Norris, 463 1079, 3492, 77 1236 (1983) (opinion MARSHALL, J.). Accordingly, nothing might entail means falls terms statute. Lucido Cravath, Swaine Moore, 425 F.Supp. 123, 128-129 (SDNY 1977). 17 Second, argues categorically exempts points exemption.10 Congress wanted grant complete immunity, expressly did so.11 18 Third, Although recognized activities make "distinctive contribution . ideas beliefs our society," NAACP Button, 371 415, 431, 83 328, 337, 405 (1963), ability fulfill function inhibited requirement merits. held another context, "[i]nvidious 723 (1973). There right, attend school labor union. Runyon McCrary, 427 160, 96 2586, 49 415 (1976); Railway Mail Assn. Corsi, 326 88, 93-94, 65 1483, 1487-1488, 89 L.Ed. 2072 (1945). III 19 conclude judgment reversed, remanded proceedings opinion. 20 ordered. 21 POWELL, concurring. 22 I Court's holding motion should granted. avers violated time span generally considered.1 averments. 23 write my understanding read extending management reasoning require among "employment" differs markedly employee—including associates.2 judgmental sensitive embrace wide range subjects.3 common conduct shared enterprise. contemplates normally will agreement, see, e.g., Memorandum Agreement, King Spalding, App. 153-164 (respondent's agreement), consent reasons admit implicates But here obligated agree enforcement obligation, voluntarily assumed, impair association.4 25 firms, now widely recognized—as be—that fact neither race nor relevant. qualities mind, capacity reason logically, work pressure, leadership, like unrelated This demonstrated success women minorities schools, law, bench, positions community, state, leadership. Law firms —and, society—are better changes. dispute actually reconsidered meeting. claims voted reconsider question required file 180 meeting, meeting see 2000e-5(e). disposition unnecessary decide question, do reach it. Rule Procedure 12(b)(1) lacked subject-matter jurisdiction claim. limited discovery previously taken place concerning organized, find "jurisdictional facts" dispute. Thomson Gaskill, 315 442, 446, 62 673, 675, 86 951 (1942). Its makes Our wisdom invocation 12(b)(1), opposed 12(b)(6). defines "person engaged industry affecting commerce fifteen each working twenty calendar weeks current preceding year," 2000e(b), "person" defined "partnerships," 2000e(a). satisfies requirements. 6. raised theories liability which, light disposition, addressed. absence existing relationship, refuses someone. circumstance concern focus present case. promised latter necessary afford condition fairly merits, impose requirement. Senate Report 867 concerned S. 1937, postponed indefinitely amended House version what ultimately became 110 Cong.Rec. 14602 (1964). 1937 contained language similar found Act. guaranteed "equal opportunity," "include all pertains 8(d) National Labor Relations (NLRA), describes employers unions meet confer regarding "wages, hours, conditions 61 142, 29 158(d). meaning analogous sheds here. drawn analogies NLRA contexts, Franks Bowman Transportation 424 747, 768-770, 1251, 1266-1267, 47 444 (1976), noted sections patterned NLRA, Albemarle Paper Co. Moody, 422 405, 419, 95 2362, 2372, 45 280 (1975). Respondent's own submissions indicate most selected ranks spent entire prepartnership legal careers (excluding judicial clerkships) 45. offers Senator Cotton's defense unsuccessful amendment limit businesses 100 employees. connection stated: "[W]hen small businessman employs 26 persons selects he comes very close selecting partner; partner, dangerously situation faces wife." 13085 (1964); accord, 118 1524, 2391 (1972). failed, unclear extent concerns about event, views hardly conflict narrow today: appropriate circumstances enough covered For exempted Indian tribes agencies Columbia, 2000e(b)(1), bona fide membership clubs, 2000e(b)(2), religious organizations, 2000e-1. initially educational institutions, 702, 255, revoked exemption, 1972, 3, 103. period associateship prerequisite being eligible "make" inflexible period, vary norm earlier than, subsequent to, customary service. Also, recognizes, annual performances associates, usually terminate evaluations. Of evade strictures labeling "partners." partnerships characteristics describe matters participation profits types compensation; assignments; approval commitments bar association, civic, political activities; questions billing; acceptance new clients; conflicts interest; retirement programs; expansion policies. affect Divisions profits, unlike shareholders' dividends, involve judgments partner's reputation true measured percentages, combinations salaries points, bonuses, possibly ways. reminds "invidious Ante, 78. say, laws ban always cost values, including rights. impede exercise personal choosing one's colleagues. Fallon, To Each His Ability, From None Race: Concept Merit Antidiscrimination, 60 Boston Univ.L.Rev. 815, 844-860 Impediments choose can violate Fourteenth Amendments. Cf. (1963); Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 449, 1163, 1488 (1958). With prevent discrimination, much depends standards courts examine Courts acknowledged academic requires some deference schools universities qualifications professors, particularly those tenured positions. Lieberman Gant, 630 60, 67-68 (CA2 1980); Kunda Muhlenberg College, 621 532, 547-548 (CA3 1980). University California Regents Bakke, 438 265, 311-315, 98 2733, 2759-2761, 57 750 (1978) POWELL). case, lack jurisdiction, issue.

Classification Label: 1