California Brewers Association v. Bryant
United States Supreme Court
444 U.S. 598 (1980)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
Beginning in May 1968, Bryant (plaintiff), who was Black, worked intermittently as a temporary employee of the Falstaff Brewing Corporation (defendant). A collective-bargaining agreement (the CBA) governed employment relations between seven breweries and certain unions on behalf of brewing-industry employees including Bryant. Under the CBA, a permanent employee was anyone who had worked at least 45 weeks in the preceding calendar year. A temporary employee was anyone who had worked at least 60 days in the preceding year. Permanent employees had substantially more favorable rights in terms of hiring and layoffs. Bryant sued seven brewing companies and several unions (the brewing entities) (defendants) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The complaint alleged that historical discrimination against Black people was being perpetuated by the CBA because attaining permanent status under the 45-week rule was highly improbable. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the 45-week scheme was not a seniority system that would exempt the brewing entities from Title VII liability. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 826,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 991 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.