International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States
- Decided
- May 31, 1977
- Docket
- 75-636
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,895 timesAbrogated on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: abrogated on other grounds (not yet verified) · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Global Horizons Inc
What later courts said
- recognizing that burden-shifting rules “are often created ... to conform with a party’s superior access to the proof’ — Barbara R. Sheridan v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Jacques Amblard (1996)
- recognizing that burden-shifting rules "are often created . . . to conform with a party's superior access to the proof" — Barbara R. Sheridan v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Jacques Amblard (1996)
- holding that a nonapplicant may pursue a Title VII action on a showing that he was deterred from applying by the employer’s discriminatory practices — Andrew G. YARTZOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lee M. THOMAS, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Defendant-Appellee (1987)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*328] Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court.
This litigation brings here several important questions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seg. (1970 ed. and Supp. V). The issues grow out of alleged unlawful employment practices engaged in by an employer and a union. The employer is a common carrier of motor freight with nationwide operations, and the union represents a large group of its employees. The District Court and the Court of Appeals held that the employer had violated Title VII by engaging in a pattern and practice of employment discrimination against Negroes and Spanish-surnamed Americans, and that the union had violated the Act by agreeing with the employer to create and maintain a "seniority system that perpetuated the effects of past racial and ethnic discrimination. In addition to the basic questions presented by these two rulings, other subsidiary issues must be resolved if violations of Title VII occurred — issues concerning the nature of the relief to which aggrieved individuals may be entitled.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.