Court Opinion

ID: 9426319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:33.51505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:00.214574
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Burger,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree generally with Mr. Justice Powell, but I would stress that although retroactive benefit-type seniority relief may sometimes be appropriate and equitable, competitive-type seniority relief at the expense of wholly *781innocent employees can rarely, if ever, be equitable if that term retains traditional meaning. More equitable would be a monetary award to the person suffering the discrimination. An award such as “front pay” could replace the need for competitive-type seniority relief. See, ante, at 777 n. 38. Such monetary relief would serve the dual purpose of deterring wrongdoing by the employer or union — or both — as well as protecting the rights of innocent employees. In every respect an innocent employee is comparable to a “holder-in-due-course” of negotiable paper or a bona fide purchaser of property without notice of any defect in the seller’s title. In this setting I cannot join in judicial approval of “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
I would stress that the Court today does not foreclose claims of employees who might be injured by this holding from securing equitable relief on their own behalf.