What is the Franks vs. Bowman Transportation Co or United Steel Workers of America v. Weber case about?
Like what did it determine? or what was the result? I don't really understand, I think i get the basics, but i need clarification. thanks!
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/424/747/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/424/747/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., Inc., 424 U.S. 747 (1976)
Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co., Inc.
Argued November 3, 1975
Decided March 24, 1976
424 U.S. 747
In a class action against respondent employer and certain labor unions (of which respondent union is the successor) petitioners alleged various racially discriminatory employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Act), especially with respect to employment of over-the-road (OTR) truck drivers. After certifying the action as a class action and, inter alia, designating one of the classes represented by petitioner Lee as consisting of black nonemployee applicants who applied for and were denied OTR positions prior to January 1, 1972, the District Court permanently enjoined the respondents from perpetuating the discriminatory practices found to exist, and, in regard to the black appliants for OTR positions, ordered the employer to notify the members of the designated class of their right to priority consideration for such jobs. But the court declined to grant the unnamed members of the class any specific relief sought, which included an award of backpay and seniority status retroactive to the date of individual application for an OTR position. While vacating the District Court's judgment insofar as it failed to award backpay to unnamed members of the class and reversing on other grounds, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's denial of any form of seniority relief, holding that such relief was barred, as a matter of law, by § 703(h) of Title VII, which provides that it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, inter alia, to apply different conditions of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority system.
1. That petitioner Lee, the named plaintiff representing the class in question, no longer has a personal stake in the outcome of the action because he had been hired by respondent employer and later was properly discharged for cause does not moot the case. An adverse relationship sufficient to meet the requirement that a "live controversy" remain before this Court not only obtained as to unnamed members of the class with respect to the
Page 424 U. S. 748
underlying cause of action, but also continues with respect to their assertion that the relief they have received in entitlement to consideration for hiring and backpay is inadequate without further award of entitlement to seniority benefits. Pp. 424 U. S. 752-757.
2. Section 703(h) does not bar seniority relief to unnamed members of the class in question, who are not seeking modification or elimination of the existing seniority
Argument: Wednesday, March 28, 1979
Decision: Wednesday, June 27, 1979
Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative Action
Categories: affirmative action, employment, labor, race discrimination
Michael R. Fontham (Argued the cause for respondent Weber in all cases)
Michael H. Gottesman (Argued the cause for the petitioner, Steelworkers Union)
Thompson Powers (Argued the cause for the petitioner, Kaiser Aluminum)
Lawrence G. Wallace (Argued the cause for the United States et al., petitioners in No. 78-436)
Facts of the Case
The United Steelworkers of America and the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation implemented an affirmative action-based training program to increase the number of the company's black skilled craft workers. Half of the eligible positions in the training program were reserved for blacks. Weber, who was white, was passed over for the program. Weber claimed that he was the victim of reverse discrimination. These cases (United Steelworkers v. Weber and Kaiser Aluminum v. Weber) were also decided together with United States v. Weber.
Did United and Kaiser Aluminum's training scheme violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race?
No. The Court held that the training scheme was legitimate because the 1964 Act "did not intend to prohibit the private sector from taking effective steps" to implement the goals of Title VII. Since the program sought to eliminate archaic patterns of racial segregation and hierarchy while not prohibiting white employees from advancing in the company, it was consistent with the intent of the law.
Hope this helps.Source(s): Justia.com and OYEZ
- Anonymous4 years ago
Don't be so bloody ignorant. If she does her work well then why do you wanna cause problems? and saying you don't wanna work with a drug addict it's only a plant that grows from the ground. Coffee and Alcohol are drugs do you do them? are you a drug addict then? So you never broke the law? and if you did and they called the cops on you would you be happy? There is no room for big criminals in this world but something like this is pathetic you really need to be a bit more open minded on things.