Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Ward's Cove Packing v. Antonia
ArgueDate=January 18
ArgueYear=1989
DecideDate=June 5
DecideYear=1989
FullName=Wards Cove Packing Company, Incorporated, et al. v. Atonio, et al.
USVol=490
USPage=642
Citation=109 S. Ct. 2115; 104 L. Ed. 2d 733; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2794; 57 U.S.L.W. 4583; 49 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1519; 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P39,021
Prior=Reversed and remanded, 827 F.2d 439. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, granted
Subsequent=827 F.2d 439, reversed and remanded.
Holding=To determine whether a disparate-impact case exists, compare racial composition of the at-issue jobs and the racial composition of the qualified population in the relevant labor market.
SCOTUS=1988-1990
Majority=White
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
Dissent=Blackmun
JoinDissent=Brennan, Marshall
Dissent2=Stevens
JoinDissent2=Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
NotParticipating=
LawsApplied=Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States

"Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio", 490 U.S. 642 (1989), was a court case argued before the United States Supreme Court on January 18, 1989. It concerned employment discrimination and was decided on June 5, 1989.

Prior History

A group of nonwhite cannery workers filed suit in District Court citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 complaining that Wards Cove Packing Co. owner of Alaskan salmon canneries, was using discriminatory hiring practices that resulted in a large number of the skilled noncannery jobs to be filled by white workers and a large number of the unskilled cannery jobs to be filled by nonwhites. In this case the nonwhite workers were predominantly native Alaskans and Filipinos. The District Court case was found in favor of the defendants, Wards Cove Packing Co.

The Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the District Court decision stating the Petitioners, the Plaintiffs in the District Court, had made a prima facie case of disparate impact. The decision was based on statistics provided by the Petitioners that showed a high percentage of nonwhite workers in the cannery jobs and a low percentage of the noncannery jobs filled by nonwhite workers.

Case

Wards Cove Packing Co. then appealed the Court of Appeals ruling to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court determined that the Court of Appeals had erred by using inappropriate statistics and comparison. The majority determined that the proper comparison was to compare the percentage of nonwhite workers in noncannery jobs with the percentage of the available labor pool that were nonwhite and who had the appropriate skills to perform the noncannery jobs.

The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals with instructions to use the more appropriate comparison. Further if on remand the Respondents did establish a prima facie disparate-impact case the Petitioners would then need to "produce evidence of a legitimate business justification" for the hiring practices that created the disparity.

Applicable cases

Congress then Amended Title VII with the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to counter the Supreme Court's holding in Ward's Cove, thereby nullifying the case's precedent. The bill, in part, reads:

The purposes of this Act are-

#to provide appropriate remedies for intentional discrimination and unlawful harassment in the workplace;
#to codify the concepts of "business necessity" and "job related" enunciated by the Supreme Court in "Griggs v. Duke Power Co.", 401 U.S. 424 (1971), and in the other Supreme Court decisions prior to Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989);
#to confirm statutory authority and provide statutory guidelines for the adjudication of disparate impact suits under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (UnitedStatesCode|42|2000e et seq.); and
#to respond to recent decisions of the Supreme Court by expanding the scope of relevant civil rights statutes in order to provide adequate protection to victims of discrimination.

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 490
* Hazelwood School Dist. v. United States [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=433&invol=299 FindLaw.com article]
* Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=450&invol=248 FindLaw.com article]

External sources

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=4901&invol=642 FindLaw.com article]


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем написать реферат

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Civil Rights Act of 1991 — Full title Civil Rights Act of 1991 Enacted by the 102nd United States Congress Citations Public Law Pub. L. 102 166 …   Wikipedia

  • Griggs v. Duke Power Co. — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Griggs v. Duke Power Co. ArgueDate=December 14 ArgueYear=1970 DecideDate=March 8 DecideYear=1971 FullName=Griggs et al. v. Duke Power Co. USVol=401 USPage=424 Citation= Prior=Reversed in part, 420 F.2d 1225. Certiorari to the …   Wikipedia

  • Affirmative action in the United States — is intended to promote access to education, employment, or housing among certain designated groups (typically, minorities and women). The stated motivation for affirmative action policies is to redress the effects of past discrimination and to… …   Wikipedia

  • Civil Rights Act of 1964 — Full title An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to …   Wikipedia

  • List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 490 — This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 490 of the United States Reports :* United States v. Sokolow , ussc|490|1|1989 * Dallas v. Stanglin , ussc|490|19|1989 * Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield ,… …   Wikipedia

  • Employment testing — is the practice of administering written, oral or other tests as a means of determining the suitability or desirability of a job applicant. The premise is that if scores on some test correlate with job performance, then it is economically useful… …   Wikipedia

  • Disparate treatment — is one of the theories of discrimination under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act; the other theory is disparate impact. Title VII prohibits employers from treating applicants or employees differently because of their membership in a …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”