Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
United States Supreme Court
478 U.S. 421, 106 S. Ct. 3019, 92 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1986)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
For years, Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association labor union (the union) (defendant) engaged in discriminatory practices that excluded non-White workers from union membership. By July 1, 1974, only 3.19 percent of the union’s membership was non-White. In a suit by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, New York City, and New York State (plaintiffs), a federal district court found that the union had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and New York law. The court ultimately adopted an affirmative-action program with the goal that the union would reach 29 percent non-White membership by 1982. In 1982 and 1983, the court found the union in civil contempt for violating the affirmative-action plan. The court established a temporary employment, training, education, and recruitment fund (the fund) to be used to increase the number of non-White applicants to the union. The court also revised the membership goal to 29.23 percent non-White membership by 1987 and ordered that one new non-White apprentice must be selected for each new White apprentice. The court provided that the preferential-selection measures would terminate once the percentage of non-White union members approximated the percentage of non-White workers in the local labor force. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s contempt findings and the fund order but set aside the requirement that one non-White apprentice be selected for every White apprentice and instead allowed the union to implement its own nondiscriminatory apprentice-selection procedures. The union petitioned the United States Supreme Court for certiorari, arguing that the lower courts’ orders and membership goal required the union to give membership preferences to non-White applicants in violation of § 706(g) of Title VII. The union argued that under § 706(g), preferential treatment could be given only to actual victims of unlawful discrimination.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
Concurrence (Powell, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (O’Connor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 825,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 990 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.