wards
cove
packing
atonio
argued
january
decided
june
jobs
petitioners
alaskan
salmon
canneries
two
general
types
unskilled
cannery
jobs
cannery
lines
filled
predominantly
nonwhites
noncannery
jobs
classified
skilled
positions
filled
predominantly
white
workers
virtually
pay
cannery
positions
respondents
class
nonwhite
cannery
workers
petitioners
facilities
filed
suit
district
title
vii
civil
rights
act
alleging
inter
alia
various
petitioners
practices
responsible
work
force
racial
stratification
denied
employment
noncannery
workers
basis
race
district
rejected
respondents
claims
finding
among
things
nonwhite
workers
overrepresented
cannery
jobs
many
jobs
filled
hiring
hall
agreement
predominantly
nonwhite
union
appeals
ultimately
reversed
pertinent
part
holding
inter
alia
respondents
made
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
hiring
skilled
unskilled
noncannery
jobs
relying
solely
respondents
statistics
showing
high
percentage
nonwhite
workers
cannery
jobs
low
percentage
workers
noncannery
positions
also
concluded
plaintiff
class
shown
disparate
impact
caused
specific
identifiable
employment
practices
criteria
burden
shifts
employer
prove
challenged
practice
business
necessity
held
appeals
erred
ruling
comparison
percentage
cannery
workers
nonwhite
percentage
noncannery
workers
nonwhite
makes
prima
facie
case
rather
proper
comparison
generally
racial
composition
jobs
racial
composition
qualified
population
relevant
labor
market
hazelwood
school
dist
respect
skilled
noncannery
jobs
issue
cannery
work
force
way
reflected
pool
qualified
job
applicants
qualified
labor
force
population
petitioners
selection
methods
employment
practices
said
disparate
impact
nonwhites
absence
minorities
holding
skilled
jobs
reflects
dearth
qualified
nonwhite
applicants
reasons
petitioners
fault
respect
unskilled
noncannery
jobs
long
barriers
practices
deterring
qualified
nonwhites
applying
employer
selection
mechanism
probably
disparate
impact
minorities
percentage
selected
nonwhite
applicants
significantly
less
percentage
qualified
nonwhite
applicants
case
percentage
nonwhite
workers
found
positions
employer
labor
force
irrelevant
prima
facie
statistical
case
moreover
isolating
cannery
workers
potential
labor
force
unskilled
noncannery
jobs
broad
majority
cannery
workers
seek
noncannery
jobs
narrow
many
qualified
persons
relevant
labor
market
cannery
workers
appeals
method
comparison
employer
racially
imbalanced
segment
work
force
haled
made
undertake
expensive
task
defending
business
necessity
selection
methods
many
employers
practicable
option
adoption
racial
quotas
rejected
congress
drafting
title
vii
appeals
theory
also
flawed
minorities
overrepresented
cannery
jobs
virtue
petitioners
contracted
predominantly
nonwhite
union
fill
positions
district
found
petitioners
eliminate
respondents
prima
facie
case
simply
ceasing
use
union
without
making
change
whatsoever
hiring
practices
noncannery
positions
issue
pp
remand
determination
whether
record
support
prima
facie
case
basis
racial
disparity
cannery
noncannery
workers
mere
showing
nonwhites
underrepresented
jobs
manner
acceptable
standards
set
forth
herein
alone
suffice
rather
courts
must
also
require
part
respondents
prima
facie
case
demonstration
statistical
disparity
complained
result
one
employment
practices
respondents
attacking
specifically
showing
challenged
practice
significantly
disparate
impact
employment
opportunities
whites
nonwhites
specific
causation
requirement
unduly
burdensome
since
liberal
discovery
rules
give
plaintiffs
broad
access
employers
records
since
employers
falling
within
scope
uniform
guidelines
employee
selection
procedures
must
maintain
records
disclosing
impact
tests
selection
procedures
employment
opportunities
persons
identifiable
race
sex
ethnic
group
pp
remand
respondents
establish
prima
facie
case
respect
petitioners
practices
burden
producing
evidence
legitimate
business
justification
practices
shift
petitioners
burden
persuasion
remain
respondents
times
rule
conforms
usual
method
allocating
persuasion
production
burdens
federal
courts
rule
cases
plaintiff
bears
burden
disproving
employer
assertion
adverse
employment
practice
based
solely
legitimate
neutral
consideration
see
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
extent
decisions
speak
employer
burden
proof
respect
business
justification
defense
understood
mean
employer
burden
production
persuasion
even
respondents
persuade
trier
fact
business
necessity
question
may
still
prevail
coming
forward
alternatives
reduce
disparate
impact
petitioners
current
practices
provided
alternatives
equally
effective
achieving
petitioners
legitimate
employment
goals
light
alternatives
costs
burdens
pp
white
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
kennedy
joined
blackmun
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
marshall
joined
post
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
marshall
blackmun
joined
post
douglas
fryer
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
douglas
duncan
richard
phillips
abraham
arditi
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondents
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
reynolds
deputy
assistant
attorney
general
clegg
richard
taranto
david
flynn
lisa
stark
american
society
personnel
administration
lawrence
lorber
robert
kirk
chamber
commerce
glen
nager
andrew
kramer
david
copus
patricia
dunn
stephen
bokat
equal
employment
advisory
council
robert
williams
douglas
mcdowell
edward
potter
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
american
civil
liberties
union
et
al
joan
bertin
isabelle
katz
pinzler
john
powell
lawyers
committee
civil
rights
law
nicholas
deb
katzenbach
alan
kraus
conrad
harper
stuart
land
norman
redlich
richard
seymour
james
gray
national
association
advancement
colored
people
grover
hankins
alfred
blumrosen
naacp
legal
defense
educational
fund
et
al
julius
levonne
chambers
charles
stephen
ralston
ronald
ellis
bill
lann
lee
patrick
patterson
theodore
shaw
antonia
hernandez
richard
larson
clint
bolick
jerald
hill
mark
bredemeier
filed
brief
center
civil
rights
amicus
curiae
justice
white
delivered
opinion
title
vii
civil
rights
act
stat
amended
et
makes
unfair
employment
practice
employer
discriminate
individual
respect
hiring
terms
condition
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
limit
segregate
classify
employees
ways
adversely
affect
employee
employee
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
griggs
duke
power
construed
title
vii
proscribe
overt
discrimination
also
practices
fair
form
discriminatory
practice
basis
liability
known
theory
involved
case
facially
neutral
employment
practice
may
deemed
violative
title
vii
without
evidence
employer
subjective
intent
discriminate
required
case
claims
us
claims
involving
employment
practices
petitioners
two
companies
operate
salmon
canneries
remote
widely
separated
areas
alaska
canneries
operate
salmon
runs
summer
months
inoperative
vacant
rest
year
may
june
year
weeks
salmon
runs
begin
workers
arrive
prepare
equipment
facilities
canning
operation
workers
possess
variety
skills
salmon
runs
begin
workers
operate
cannery
lines
arrive
remain
long
fish
depart
canneries
closed
winterized
left
vacant
next
spring
companies
employ
small
number
individuals
headquarters
seattle
astoria
oregon
plus
employees
winter
shipyard
seattle
length
size
salmon
runs
vary
year
year
hence
number
employees
needed
cannery
also
varies
estimates
made
early
winter
possible
necessary
employees
hired
time
comes
transported
canneries
salmon
must
processed
soon
caught
work
canning
season
therefore
intense
reason
canneries
located
remote
regions
workers
housed
canneries
meals
mess
halls
jobs
canneries
two
general
types
cannery
jobs
cannery
line
unskilled
positions
noncannery
jobs
fall
variety
classifications
noncannery
jobs
classified
skilled
positions
cannery
jobs
filled
predominantly
nonwhites
filipinos
alaska
natives
filipinos
hired
dispatched
local
international
longshoremen
warehousemen
union
pursuant
hiring
hall
agreement
local
alaska
natives
primarily
reside
villages
near
remote
cannery
locations
noncannery
jobs
filled
predominantly
white
workers
hired
winter
months
companies
offices
washington
oregon
virtually
noncannery
jobs
pay
cannery
positions
predominantly
white
noncannery
workers
predominantly
nonwhite
cannery
employees
live
separate
dormitories
eat
separate
mess
halls
respondents
class
nonwhite
cannery
workers
employed
canneries
brought
title
vii
action
petitioners
respondents
alleged
variety
petitioners
practices
nepotism
rehire
preference
lack
objective
hiring
criteria
separate
hiring
channels
practice
promoting
within
responsible
racial
stratification
work
force
denied
nonwhites
employment
noncannery
workers
basis
race
respondents
also
complained
petitioners
racially
segregated
housing
dining
facilities
respondents
claims
advanced
theories
title
vii
liability
district
held
bench
trial
entered
findings
fact
epd
pp
wd
rejected
respondents
claims
also
rejected
challenges
involving
subjective
employment
criteria
used
petitioners
fill
noncannery
positions
ground
criteria
subject
attack
theory
petitioners
objective
employment
practices
english
language
requirement
alleged
nepotism
hiring
failure
post
noncannery
openings
rehire
preference
etc
found
subject
challenge
theory
claims
rejected
failure
proof
judgment
entered
petitioners
appeal
panel
ninth
circuit
affirmed
decision
vacated
appeals
agreed
hear
case
en
banc
en
banc
hearing
ordered
settle
intracircuit
conflict
question
whether
subjective
hiring
practices
analyzed
model
appeals
held
subsequently
ruled
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
analysis
applied
subjective
hiring
practices
ninth
circuit
also
concluded
case
nce
plaintiff
class
shown
disparate
impact
caused
specific
identifiable
employment
practices
criteria
burden
shifts
employer
prov
business
necessity
challenged
practice
en
banc
holding
subjective
employment
practices
reversed
district
contrary
ruling
en
banc
appeals
remanded
case
panel
proceedings
remand
panel
applied
en
banc
ruling
facts
case
held
respondents
made
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
hiring
skilled
unskilled
noncannery
positions
panel
remanded
case
proceedings
instructing
district
employer
burden
prove
disparate
impact
caused
hiring
employment
practices
justified
business
necessity
neither
en
banc
panel
disturbed
district
rejection
claims
petitioners
sought
review
appeals
decision
challenging
several
grounds
issues
raised
decision
matters
evenly
divided
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
supra
granted
certiorari
purpose
addressing
disputed
questions
proper
application
title
vii
theory
liability
ii
holding
respondents
made
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
appeals
relied
solely
respondents
statistics
showing
high
percentage
nonwhite
workers
cannery
jobs
low
percentage
workers
noncannery
positions
although
statistical
proof
alone
make
prima
facie
case
see
teamsters
hazelwood
school
dist
appeals
ruling
misapprehends
precedents
purposes
title
vii
therefore
reverse
doubt
similar
mistaken
analysis
undertaken
courts
hazelwood
supra
comparison
fundamentally
misconceived
role
statistics
employment
discrimination
cases
proper
comparison
racial
composition
jobs
racial
composition
qualified
population
relevant
labor
market
ibid
comparison
racial
composition
qualified
persons
labor
market
persons
holding
jobs
generally
forms
proper
basis
initial
inquiry
case
alternatively
cases
labor
market
statistics
difficult
impossible
ascertain
recognized
certain
statistics
measures
indicating
racial
composition
applicants
jobs
equally
probative
purpose
see
new
york
city
transit
authority
beazer
one
example
illustrates
must
respondents
statistics
concerning
noncannery
work
force
one
canneries
issue
indicate
approximately
new
hires
medical
jobs
new
hires
officer
worker
positions
nonwhite
see
app
brief
respondents
case
less
applicants
jobs
nonwhite
nonwhites
made
lower
percentage
relevant
qualified
labor
market
hard
see
respondents
without
cf
connecticut
teal
made
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
yet
appeals
theory
simply
nonwhites
comprise
cannery
workers
cannery
question
see
app
brief
respondents
respondents
successful
establishing
prima
facie
case
racial
discrimination
title
vii
result
squared
cases
goals
behind
statute
appeals
theory
least
mean
employer
segment
work
force
reason
racially
imbalanced
haled
forced
engage
expensive
task
defending
business
necessity
methods
used
select
members
work
force
practicable
option
many
employers
adopt
racial
quotas
insuring
portion
work
forces
deviated
racial
composition
portions
thereof
result
congress
expressly
rejected
drafting
title
vii
see
see
also
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
opinion
appeals
theory
leave
employer
little
choice
engage
subjective
quota
system
employment
selection
course
far
intent
title
vii
albemarle
paper
moody
blackmun
concurring
judgment
appeals
also
erred
respect
unskilled
noncannery
positions
racial
imbalance
one
segment
employer
work
force
without
establish
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
respect
selection
workers
employer
positions
even
workers
different
positions
may
somewhat
fungible
skills
arguably
case
cannery
unskilled
noncannery
workers
long
barriers
practices
deterring
qualified
nonwhites
applying
noncannery
positions
see
supra
percentage
selected
applicants
nonwhite
significantly
less
percentage
qualified
applicants
nonwhite
employer
selection
mechanism
probably
operate
disparate
impact
minorities
case
percentage
nonwhite
workers
found
positions
employer
labor
force
irrelevant
question
prima
facie
statistical
case
disparate
impact
noted
contrary
ruling
point
almost
inexorably
lead
use
numerical
quotas
workplace
result
congress
rejected
repeatedly
past
moreover
isolating
cannery
workers
potential
labor
force
unskilled
noncannery
positions
broad
narrow
focus
broad
vast
majority
cannery
workers
seek
jobs
unskilled
noncannery
positions
showing
many
done
even
none
arguably
deterring
practices
existed
thus
pool
cannery
workers
used
surrogate
class
qualified
job
applicants
contains
many
persons
noncannery
job
applicants
conversely
respondents
propose
use
cannery
workers
comparison
purposes
represent
qualified
labor
population
generally
group
narrow
obviously
many
qualified
persons
labor
market
noncannery
jobs
cannery
workers
peculiar
facts
case
illustrate
comparison
percentage
nonwhite
cannery
workers
nonwhite
noncannery
workers
improper
basis
making
claim
disparate
impact
district
found
nonwhites
overrepresent
ed
among
cannery
workers
petitioners
contracted
predominantly
nonwhite
union
local
fill
positions
see
epd
result
petitioners
permissible
reason
ceased
using
local
hiring
channel
cannery
positions
appears
according
district
findings
racial
stratification
cannery
noncannery
workers
might
diminish
statistical
insignificance
appeals
approach
therefore
possible
change
whatsoever
hiring
practices
noncannery
workers
jobs
issue
lawsuit
petitioners
make
respondents
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
disappear
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
selection
noncannery
workers
absent
petitioners
use
local
hire
cannery
workers
surely
petitioners
reliance
union
fill
cannery
jobs
issue
resulting
overrepresentation
nonwhites
positions
standing
alone
make
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
yet
precisely
ironic
result
appeals
reached
consequently
reverse
appeals
ruling
comparison
percentage
cannery
workers
nonwhite
percentage
noncannery
workers
nonwhite
makes
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
course
leaves
unresolved
whether
record
made
district
support
conclusion
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
established
basis
racial
disparity
cannery
noncannery
workers
issue
appeals
district
address
first
instance
iii
since
statistical
disparity
relied
appeals
suffice
make
prima
facie
case
inquiry
us
whether
specific
challenged
employment
practices
petitioners
caused
disparity
pretermitted
inquiry
whether
disparate
impact
employment
practice
may
justified
business
considerations
remand
proceedings
however
whether
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
made
defensible
fashion
case
address
two
challenges
petitioners
made
decision
appeals
first
question
causation
case
law
respect
correctly
stated
justice
opinion
last
term
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
note
plaintiff
burden
establishing
prima
facie
case
goes
beyond
need
show
statistical
disparities
employer
work
force
plaintiff
must
begin
identifying
specific
employment
practice
challenged
especially
cases
employer
combines
subjective
criteria
use
rigid
standardized
rules
tests
plaintiff
view
responsible
isolating
identifying
specific
employment
practices
allegedly
responsible
observed
statistical
disparities
indeed
even
appeals
whose
decision
petitioners
assault
score
noted
essential
practices
identified
cannery
workers
linked
causally
demonstrated
adverse
impact
notwithstanding
appeals
apparent
adherence
proper
inquiry
petitioners
contend
erred
permitting
respondents
make
case
offering
one
set
cumulative
comparative
statistics
evidence
disparate
impact
petitioners
hiring
practices
brief
petitioners
cases
always
focused
impact
particular
hiring
practices
employment
opportunities
minorities
employer
escape
liability
title
vii
demonstrating
bottom
line
work
force
racially
balanced
particular
hiring
practices
may
operate
deprive
minorities
employment
opportunities
see
connecticut
teal
title
vii
plaintiff
make
case
disparate
impact
simply
showing
bottom
line
racial
imbalance
work
force
general
matter
plaintiff
must
demonstrate
application
specific
particular
employment
practice
created
disparate
impact
attack
showing
integral
part
plaintiff
prima
facie
case
suit
title
vii
respondents
alleged
several
objective
employment
practices
nepotism
separate
hiring
channels
rehire
preferences
well
use
subjective
decision
making
select
noncannery
workers
disparate
impact
nonwhites
respondents
base
claim
statistics
allegedly
show
disproportionately
low
percentage
nonwhites
positions
however
even
remand
respondents
show
nonwhites
underrepresented
jobs
manner
acceptable
standards
set
forth
part
ii
supra
alone
suffice
make
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
respondents
also
demonstrate
disparity
complain
result
one
employment
practices
attacking
specifically
showing
challenged
practice
significantly
disparate
impact
employment
opportunities
whites
nonwhites
hold
otherwise
result
employers
potentially
liable
myriad
innocent
causes
may
lead
statistical
imbalances
composition
work
forces
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
supra
complain
specific
causation
requirement
unduly
burdensome
title
vii
plaintiffs
liberal
civil
discovery
rules
give
plaintiffs
broad
access
employers
records
effort
document
claims
also
employers
falling
within
scope
uniform
guidelines
employee
selection
procedures
cfr
et
seq
required
maintain
records
information
disclose
impact
tests
selection
procedures
upon
employment
opportunities
persons
identifiable
race
sex
ethnic
group
see
includes
records
concerning
individual
components
selection
process
significant
disparity
selection
rates
whites
nonwhites
see
plaintiffs
general
matter
benefit
tools
meet
burden
showing
causal
link
challenged
employment
practices
racial
imbalances
work
force
respondents
presumably
took
full
advantage
opportunities
build
case
trial
district
held
consequently
remand
courts
instructed
require
part
respondents
prima
facie
case
demonstration
specific
elements
petitioners
hiring
process
significantly
disparate
impact
nonwhites
remand
respondents
meet
proof
burdens
outlined
establish
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
respect
petitioners
employment
practices
case
shift
business
justification
petitioners
offer
use
practices
phase
case
contains
two
components
first
consideration
justifications
employer
offers
use
practices
second
availability
alternative
practices
achieve
business
ends
less
racial
impact
see
albemarle
paper
moody
consider
two
components
turn
though
phrased
query
differently
different
cases
generally
well
established
justification
stage
case
dispositive
issue
whether
challenged
practice
serves
significant
way
legitimate
employment
goals
employer
see
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
new
york
city
transit
authority
beazer
griggs
duke
power
touchstone
inquiry
reasoned
review
employer
justification
use
challenged
practice
mere
insubstantial
justification
regard
suffice
low
standard
review
permit
discrimination
practiced
use
spurious
seemingly
neutral
employment
practices
time
though
requirement
challenged
practice
essential
indispensable
employer
business
pass
muster
degree
scrutiny
almost
impossible
employers
meet
result
host
evils
identified
see
supra
phase
employer
carries
burden
producing
evidence
business
justification
employment
practice
burden
persuasion
however
remains
plaintiff
extent
ninth
circuit
held
otherwise
en
banc
decision
case
see
panel
decision
remand
see
suggesting
persuasion
burden
shift
petitioners
respondents
established
prima
facie
case
disparate
impact
decisions
erroneous
ultimate
burden
proving
discrimination
protected
group
caused
specific
employment
practice
remains
plaintiff
times
watson
supra
emphasis
added
rule
conforms
usual
method
allocating
persuasion
production
burdens
federal
courts
see
fed
rule
evid
specifically
conforms
rule
cases
plaintiff
bears
burden
disproving
employer
assertion
adverse
employment
action
practice
based
solely
legitimate
neutral
consideration
see
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
acknowledge
earlier
decisions
read
suggesting
otherwise
see
watson
supra
blackmun
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
extent
cases
speak
employer
burden
proof
respect
legitimate
business
justification
defense
see
dothard
rawlinson
understood
mean
employer
production
persuasion
burden
nlrb
transportation
management
persuasion
burden
must
remain
plaintiff
must
prove
individual
race
color
denied
desired
employment
opportunity
see
finally
remand
case
reaches
point
respondents
persuade
trier
fact
question
petitioners
business
necessity
defense
respondents
may
still
able
prevail
respondents
persuade
factfinder
tests
selection
devices
without
similarly
undesirable
racial
effect
also
serve
employer
legitimate
hiring
interest
demonstrating
respondents
prove
petitioners
using
tests
merely
pretext
discrimination
albemarle
paper
supra
see
also
watson
blackmun
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
respondents
established
prima
facie
case
come
forward
alternatives
petitioners
hiring
practices
reduce
racially
disparate
impact
practices
currently
used
petitioners
refuse
adopt
alternatives
refusal
belie
claim
petitioners
incumbent
practices
employed
nondiscriminatory
reasons
course
alternative
practices
respondents
offer
respect
must
equally
effective
petitioners
chosen
hiring
procedures
achieving
petitioners
legitimate
employment
goals
moreover
actors
cost
burdens
proposed
alternative
selection
devices
relevant
determining
whether
equally
effective
challenged
practice
serving
employer
legitimate
business
goals
watson
supra
courts
generally
less
competent
employers
restructure
business
practices
furnco
construction
waters
consequently
judiciary
proceed
care
mandating
employer
must
adopt
plaintiff
alternative
selection
hiring
practice
response
title
vii
suit
iv
reasons
given
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
errata
title
provides
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
fail
refuse
hire
discharge
individual
otherwise
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
limit
segregate
classify
employees
applicants
employment
way
deprive
tend
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
otherwise
adversely
affect
status
employee
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
independent
fishermen
catch
salmon
turn
boats
called
tenders
transport
fish
fishing
grounds
canneries
cannery
fish
eviscerated
eggs
pulled
cleaned
operating
rate
approximately
four
cans
per
second
salmon
filled
cans
next
canned
salmon
cooked
precise
requirements
established
fda
cans
inspected
ensure
proper
seals
maintained
top
bottom
sides
vacated
noncannery
jobs
described
follows
appeals
machinists
engineers
hired
maintain
smooth
continuous
operation
canning
equipment
quality
control
personnel
conduct
inspections
recordkeeping
tenders
staffed
crew
necessary
operate
vessel
variety
support
personnel
employed
operate
entire
cannery
community
including
example
cooks
carpenters
bookkeepers
beach
gangs
dock
yard
labor
construction
etc
fact
neither
district
ninth
circuit
en
banc
subsequent
appeals
panel
ruled
respondents
claims
allegations
intentional
racial
discrimination
warrants
particular
attention
light
dissents
comment
canneries
bear
unsettling
resemblance
aspects
plantation
economy
post
stevens
dissenting
post
blackmun
dissenting
whatever
resemblance
unanimous
view
lower
courts
litigation
respondents
prove
canneries
practice
intentional
racial
discrimination
consequently
justice
blackmun
hyperbolic
allegation
decision
case
indicates
longer
believes
race
discrimination
nonwhites
problem
society
inapt
course
unfortunately
true
race
discrimination
exists
country
mean
however
exists
canneries
precisely
proved
exist
canneries
indeed
justice
stevens
concedes
respondents
press
us
legal
theories
aspects
cannery
life
finds
resemble
plantation
economy
might
unlawful
post
thus
question
whether
approve
petitioners
employment
practices
society
exists
canneries
rather
whether
respondents
properly
established
practices
violate
title
vii
parties
dispute
extent
discrepancy
percentage
nonwhites
employed
cannery
workers
employed
noncannery
positions
compare
brief
petitioners
brief
respondents
district
made
precise
numerical
findings
regard
simply
noted
significant
disparities
jobs
noncannery
jobs
total
workforce
canneries
explained
fact
nearly
employed
cannery
worker
department
see
epd
pp
wd
reasons
explained
degree
disparity
groups
relevant
decision
fact
figures
general
population
might
accurately
reflect
pool
qualified
job
applicants
cf
teamsters
even
permitted
plaintiffs
rest
prima
facie
cases
statistics
well
see
dothard
rawlinson
obviously
analysis
different
found
dearth
qualified
nonwhite
applicants
due
practices
petitioners
part
expressly
implicitly
deterred
minority
group
members
applying
noncannery
positions
see
teamsters
supra
qualify
conclusion
observing
probable
disparate
impact
minorities
circumstances
racial
balance
defense
title
vii
see
connecticut
teal
thus
even
petitioners
show
percentage
selected
applicants
nonwhite
significantly
less
percentage
qualified
applicants
nonwhite
respondents
still
case
title
vii
prove
particular
hiring
practice
disparate
impact
minorities
notwithstanding
racial
balance
petitioners
work
force
see
teal
supra
understand
opinions
specific
employment
practices
challenged
insofar
claimed
responsible
overall
disparity
number
minority
cannery
noncannery
workers
appeals
purport
hold
specified
employment
practice
produced
disparate
impact
actionable
title
vii
say
specific
practice
nepotism
proved
exist
subject
challenge
disparate
impact
minorities
say
segregated
dormitories
eating
facilities
workplace
may
challenged
without
showing
disparate
impact
hiring
promotion
course
petitioners
obligation
collect
retain
data
may
limited
guidelines
see
cfr
exempting
seasonal
jobs
certain
recordkeeping
requirements
justice
blackmun
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
dissenting
fully
concur
justice
stevens
analysis
case
today
bare
majority
takes
three
major
strides
backwards
battle
race
discrimination
reaches
make
last
term
plurality
opinion
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
law
thereby
upsetting
longstanding
distribution
burdens
proof
title
vii
cases
bars
use
internal
work
force
comparisons
making
prima
facie
case
discrimination
even
structure
industry
question
renders
statistical
comparison
meaningless
requires
statistical
proof
causation
even
proof
impossible
harshness
results
well
demonstrated
facts
case
salmon
industry
described
record
takes
us
back
kind
overt
institutionalized
discrimination
dealt
years
total
residential
work
environment
organized
principles
racial
stratification
segregation
justice
stevens
points
resembles
plantation
economy
post
industry
long
characterized
taste
discrimination
sort
preference
hiring
nonwhites
fill
lowest
level
positions
condition
stay
majority
legal
rulings
essentially
immunize
practices
attack
title
vii
analysis
sadly
comes
surprise
one
wonders
whether
majority
still
believes
race
discrimination
accurately
race
discrimination
nonwhites
problem
society
even
remembers
ever
cf
richmond
croson
justice
stevens
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
join
dissenting
fully
years
ago
unanimously
held
title
vii
civil
rights
act
prohibits
employment
practices
discriminatory
effects
well
intended
discriminate
griggs
duke
power
federal
courts
agencies
consistently
enforced
interpretation
thus
promoting
national
goal
eliminating
barriers
define
economic
opportunity
aptitude
ability
race
color
national
origin
traits
easily
identified
utterly
irrelevant
one
qualification
particular
job
regrettably
retreats
efforts
review
interlocutory
judgment
respecting
peculiar
facts
lawsuit
turning
blind
eye
meaning
purpose
title
vii
majority
opinion
perfunctorily
rejects
longstanding
rule
law
underestimates
probative
value
evidence
racially
stratified
work
force
join
latest
sojourn
judicial
activism
thought
superfluous
recount
late
date
development
title
vii
jurisprudence
majority
facile
treatment
settled
law
necessitates
primer
initially
considered
meaning
title
vii
griggs
duke
power
class
utility
company
employees
challenged
conditioning
entry
higher
paying
jobs
upon
high
school
education
passage
two
written
tests
despite
evidence
two
requirements
operated
render
ineligible
markedly
disproportionate
number
negroes
appeals
held
showing
intent
discriminate
account
race
title
vii
violation
chief
justice
burger
landmark
opinion
established
employer
may
violate
statute
even
acting
complete
good
faith
without
invidious
intent
focusing
explained
objective
congress
enactment
title
vii
plain
language
statute
achieve
equality
employment
opportunities
remove
barriers
operated
past
favor
identifiable
group
white
employees
employees
act
practices
procedures
tests
neutral
face
even
neutral
terms
intent
maintained
operate
freeze
status
quo
prior
discriminatory
employment
practices
griggs
framework
focus
ostensibly
neutral
qualification
standards
proved
inapposite
analyzing
individual
employee
claim
brought
employer
intentionally
discriminated
account
race
means
determining
intent
absent
direct
evidence
outlined
mcdonnell
douglas
green
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
two
opinions
written
justice
powell
unanimous
courts
case
see
teamsters
plaintiff
initial
burden
onerous
establish
prima
facie
case
racial
discrimination
create
presumption
unlawful
discrimination
eliminat
ing
common
nondiscriminatory
reasons
plaintiff
rejection
burden
must
shift
employer
articulate
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
employee
rejection
see
finally
title
vii
permit
employer
use
employee
conduct
pretext
sort
discrimination
prohibited
employee
must
given
full
fair
opportunity
demonstrate
competent
evidence
presumptively
valid
reasons
rejection
fact
coverup
racially
discriminatory
decision
see
burdens
producing
evidence
thus
shift
ultimate
burden
persuading
trier
fact
defendant
intentionally
discriminated
plaintiff
remains
times
plaintiff
decisions
federal
courts
repeatedly
recognized
employer
burden
case
simply
one
coming
forward
evidence
legitimate
business
purpose
burden
case
proof
affirmative
defense
business
necessity
although
majority
opinion
blurs
distinction
thoughtful
reflection
pleading
principles
clarifies
fundamental
differences
two
types
burdens
proof
ordinary
civil
trial
plaintiff
bears
burden
persuading
trier
fact
defendant
harmed
see
restatement
second
torts
hereinafter
restatement
defendant
may
undercut
plaintiff
efforts
confronting
plaintiff
evidence
case
chief
submitting
countervailing
evidence
case
plaintiff
proves
existence
harmful
act
defendant
escape
liability
persuading
factfinder
act
justified
excusable
see
restatement
plaintiff
turn
may
try
refute
affirmative
defense
although
burdens
producing
evidence
regarding
existence
harm
excuse
thus
shift
plaintiff
defendant
burden
proving
either
proposition
remains
throughout
party
asserting
case
discrimination
within
meaning
title
vii
unless
employer
intentionally
treated
employee
unfairly
race
therefore
employee
retains
burden
proving
existence
intent
times
direct
evidence
intent
employee
may
little
difficulty
persuading
factfinder
discrimination
occurred
likelier
event
intent
established
inference
employee
may
resort
inquiry
either
instance
employer
may
undermine
employee
evidence
independent
burden
persuasion
contrast
intent
plays
role
inquiry
question
rather
whether
employment
practice
significant
adverse
effect
identifiable
class
workers
regardless
cause
motive
practice
employer
may
attempt
contradict
factual
basis
effect
prevent
employee
establishing
prima
facie
case
employer
faced
sufficient
proof
disparate
impact
recourse
justify
practice
explaining
necessary
operation
business
justification
classic
example
affirmative
defense
failing
explore
interplay
distinct
orders
proof
announces
frequent
statements
employer
shoulders
burden
proof
respecting
business
necessity
understood
mean
employer
production
persuasion
burden
ante
opinions
always
emphasized
case
employer
burden
weighty
touchstone
said
griggs
business
necessity
later
held
prison
administrators
failed
rebu
prima
facie
case
discrimination
showing
height
weight
requirements
essential
effective
job
performance
dothard
rawlinson
cf
supra
thus
astonished
read
touchstone
inquiry
reasoned
review
employer
justification
use
challenged
practice
requirement
challenged
practice
essential
ante
casual
almost
summary
rejection
statutory
construction
developed
wake
griggs
disturbing
always
believed
griggs
opinion
correctly
reflected
intent
congress
enacted
title
vii
even
persuaded
join
rejection
consistent
interpretation
federal
statute
congress
frequently
revisits
statutory
scheme
readily
correct
mistakes
misread
meaning
johnson
transportation
agency
santa
clara
stevens
concurring
runyon
mccrary
stevens
concurring
see
mcnally
stevens
dissenting
commissioner
fink
stevens
dissenting
see
also
rodriguez
de
quijas
express
stevens
dissenting
also
troubling
apparent
redefinition
employees
burden
proof
case
prima
facie
case
made
declares
unless
employees
isolat
identif
specific
employment
practices
allegedly
responsible
observed
statistical
disparities
ante
quoting
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
plurality
opinion
additional
proof
requirement
unwarranted
elementary
plaintiff
recover
upon
proof
injury
alone
rather
plaintiff
must
connect
injury
act
defendant
order
establish
prima
facie
defendant
liable
restatement
although
causal
link
must
substance
act
need
constitute
sole
primary
cause
harm
cf
price
waterhouse
hopkins
thus
case
proof
numerous
questionable
employment
practices
fortify
employee
assertion
practices
caused
racial
disparities
ordinary
principles
fairness
require
title
vii
actions
tried
like
lawsuit
cf
postal
service
bd
governors
aikens
changes
majority
makes
today
tipping
scales
favor
employers
faithful
principles
ii
petitioners
seek
reversal
appeals
dismissal
suit
ground
respondents
statistical
evidence
failed
prove
prima
facie
case
discrimination
brief
petitioners
district
concluded
significant
disparities
racial
composition
cannery
workers
noncannery
workers
made
precise
numerical
findings
critical
points
see
ante
given
dearth
findings
newly
articulated
preference
individualized
proof
causation
manifestly
unfair
consider
respondents
evidence
aggregate
deem
insufficient
thus
properly
rejects
petitioners
request
final
judgment
remands
determination
strength
respondents
prima
facie
case
see
ante
even
juncture
however
believe
respondents
evidence
deserves
greater
credit
majority
allows
statistical
evidence
discrimination
compare
racial
composition
employees
disputed
jobs
qualified
population
relevant
labor
market
ante
quoting
hazelwood
school
dist
statement
leaves
open
definition
qualified
population
relevant
labor
market
previous
opinions
new
york
city
transit
authority
beazer
dothard
rawlinson
albemarle
paper
moody
griggs
demonstrate
reviewing
statistical
evidence
strive
numerical
exactitude
expense
needs
particular
case
district
findings
fact
depict
unique
industry
canneries
often
located
remote
sparsely
populated
areas
alaska
epd
wd
jobs
seasonal
season
length
canneries
personnel
needs
varying
year
year
day
day
ibid
fill
employment
requirements
petitioners
must
recruit
transport
many
cannery
workers
noncannery
workers
pacific
northwest
cannery
workers
come
union
local
based
outside
alaska
native
villages
near
canneries
ibid
employees
noncannery
positions
positions
issue
learn
openings
word
mouth
jobs
seldom
posted
advertised
promotion
noncannery
jobs
within
cannery
workers
ranks
general
district
found
jobs
require
skills
ranging
english
literacy
typing
ability
use
seam
micrometers
gauges
mechanic
hand
tools
good
health
driver
license
cannery
workers
jobs
like
handful
positions
unskilled
found
intensity
work
canning
season
precludes
training
skilled
noncannery
positions
made
findings
regarding
extent
cannery
workers
already
qualified
jobs
individual
plaintiffs
testified
persuasively
fully
qualified
jobs
neither
credited
discredited
testimony
although
findings
concerning
wage
differentials
parties
seem
agree
wages
cannery
workers
lower
noncannery
workers
skilled
unskilled
district
found
nearly
cannery
workers
nonwhite
percentage
nonwhites
employed
entire
alaska
salmon
canning
industry
stabilized
precise
stratification
work
force
described
findings
parties
seem
agree
noncannery
jobs
predominantly
held
whites
petitioners
contend
relevant
labor
market
case
general
population
external
labor
market
jobs
issue
brief
petitioners
rely
district
findings
regard
findings
ambiguous
one
point
district
specifies
alaska
pacific
northwest
california
geographical
region
petitioners
draw
employees
next
finding
refers
relevant
geographical
area
cannery
worker
laborer
nonskilled
jobs
epd
express
finding
relevant
labor
market
noncannery
jobs
even
assuming
district
properly
defined
relevant
geographical
area
apparent
assumption
population
area
constituted
available
labor
supply
adequately
founded
undisputed
requirement
employment
either
cannery
noncannery
worker
availability
seasonal
employment
far
reaches
alaska
many
noncannery
workers
furthermore
must
available
preseason
work
yet
record
identify
portion
general
population
alaska
california
pacific
northwest
accept
type
employment
deficiency
respecting
crucial
job
qualification
diminishes
usefulness
petitioners
statistical
evidence
contrast
respondents
evidence
comparing
racial
compositions
within
work
force
identifies
pool
workers
willing
work
relevant
times
familiar
workings
industry
surely
probative
untailored
general
population
statistics
petitioners
focus
cf
hazelwood
teamsters
evidence
virtually
employees
major
categories
jobs
white
whereas
cannery
workers
nonwhite
may
suffice
establish
prima
facie
case
discrimination
evidence
racial
stratification
puts
specific
employment
practices
challenged
respondents
perspective
petitioners
recruit
employees
jobs
outside
work
force
rather
lower
paying
overwhelmingly
nonwhite
cannery
worker
positions
epd
information
availability
positions
conducted
word
mouth
therefore
maintenance
housing
mess
halls
separate
largely
white
noncannery
work
force
cannery
workers
coupled
tendency
toward
nepotistic
hiring
obvious
barriers
employment
opportunities
nonwhites
putting
one
side
issue
business
justifications
quite
wrong
conclude
practices
discriminatory
consequence
thus
agree
appeals
district
makes
additional
findings
prescribed
today
treat
evidence
racial
stratification
work
force
significant
element
respondents
prima
facie
case
iii
majority
opinion
begins
recognition
settled
rule
facially
neutral
employment
practice
may
deemed
violative
title
vii
without
evidence
employer
subjective
intent
discriminate
required
case
ante
departs
body
law
engendered
theory
reformulating
order
proof
weight
parties
burdens
undertakes
unwise
changes
elementary
eminently
fair
rules
mystery
respectfully
dissent
stat
amended
et
seq
title
vii
also
bars
discrimination
religion
sex
discrimination
based
characteristics
challenged
statutes
see
school
board
nassau
county
arline
determining
scope
protection
handicapped
schoolteacher
rehabilitation
act
stat
newport
news
shipbuilding
dry
dock
eeoc
pregnancy
discrimination
act
pub
stat
lorillard
pons
age
discrimination
employment
act
stat
amended
et
seq
corning
glass
works
brennan
equal
pay
act
stat
enacted
fair
labor
standards
act
see
ante
majority
purports
reverse
appeals
fact
directs
district
make
additional
findings
already
ordered
appeals
compare
ante
furthermore
nearly
half
majority
opinion
devoted
two
questions
fairly
raised
point
question
causation
case
ante
nature
employer
defense
ante
perceive
urgency
decide
disputed
questions
ante
interlocutory
stage
factually
complicated
case
believe
denied
certiorari
allowed
district
make
additional
findings
directed
appeals
respondents
constitute
class
present
former
employees
petitioners
two
alaskan
salmon
canning
companies
class
members
described
parties
nonwhite
include
persons
samoan
chinese
filipino
japanese
alaska
native
descent
one
citizens
epd
pp
wd
fifteen
years
ago
commenced
suit
alleging
petitioners
engage
hiring
job
assignment
housing
messing
practices
segregate
nonwhites
whites
violation
title
vii
evidence
included
response
foreman
college
student
inquiry
cannery
employment
position
take
many
young
fellows
bristol
bay
canneries
background
type
employees
cannery
labor
either
eskimo
filipino
facilities
mix
others
groups
characteristics
alaska
salmon
industry
described
litigation
particular
segregation
housing
dining
facilities
stratification
jobs
along
racial
ethnic
lines
bear
unsettling
resemblance
aspects
plantation
economy
see
generally
plantation
town
county
essays
local
history
american
slave
society
miller
genovese
eds
indeed
maintenance
inferior
segregated
facilities
housing
feeding
nonwhite
employees
see
epd
pp
strikes
form
discrimination
although
necessarily
fit
neatly
mold
nonetheless
violates
title
vii
see
generally
brief
national
association
advancement
colored
people
amicus
curiae
respondents
however
press
theory
us
noted
census
statistics
showed
employer
state
north
carolina
white
males
completed
high
school
negro
males
done
similarly
respect
standardized
tests
eeoc
one
case
found
use
battery
tests
including
wonderlic
bennett
tests
used
company
instant
case
resulted
whites
passing
tests
compared
blacks
griggs
appeals
held
company
adopted
diploma
test
requirements
without
intention
discriminate
negro
employees
suggest
either
district
appeals
erred
examining
employer
intent
good
intent
absence
discriminatory
intent
redeem
employment
procedures
testing
mechanisms
operate
headwinds
minority
groups
unrelated
measuring
job
capability
emphasis
added
citation
omitted
see
subsection
provides
shall
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
limit
segregate
classify
employees
applicants
employment
way
deprive
tend
deprive
individual
employment
opportunities
otherwise
adversely
affect
status
employee
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
opinion
concluded
nothing
act
precludes
use
testing
measuring
procedures
obviously
useful
congress
forbidden
giving
devices
mechanisms
controlling
force
unless
demonstrably
reasonable
measure
job
performance
congress
commanded
less
qualified
preferred
better
qualified
simply
minority
origins
far
disparaging
job
qualifications
congress
made
qualifications
controlling
factor
race
religion
nationality
sex
become
irrelevant
congress
commanded
tests
used
must
measure
person
job
person
abstract
emphasis
added
voting
rights
act
amendments
pub
stat
amended
codified
ed
supp
legislative
reports
leading
amendments
title
vii
also
evince
support
analysis
pp
accord
connecticut
teal
moreover
theory
employed
enforce
fair
housing
age
discrimination
statutes
see
note
business
necessity
title
viii
importing
employment
discrimination
doctrine
fair
housing
act
ford
rev
note
disparate
impact
analysis
age
discrimination
employment
act
rev
subsection
makes
unlawful
employer
fail
refuse
hire
discharge
individual
otherwise
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
mcdonnell
douglas
green
justice
powell
explained
griggs
differs
instant
case
important
respects
dealt
standardized
testing
devices
however
neutral
face
operated
exclude
many
blacks
capable
performing
effectively
desired
positions
griggs
rightly
concerned
childhood
deficiencies
education
background
minority
citizens
resulting
forces
beyond
control
allowed
work
cumulative
invidious
burden
citizens
remainder
lives
respondent
however
appears
different
clothing
engaged
seriously
disruptive
act
one
seeks
employment
petitioner
seek
exclusion
basis
testing
device
overstates
necessary
competent
performance
sweeping
disqualification
past
record
unlawful
behavior
however
remote
insubstantial
unrelated
applicant
personal
qualifications
employee
petitioner
assertedly
rejected
respondent
unlawful
conduct
absence
proof
pretext
discriminatory
application
reason
thought
kind
artificial
arbitrary
unnecessary
barriers
employment
found
intention
congress
remove
citations
omitted
may
done
showing
belongs
racial
minority
ii
applied
qualified
job
employer
seeking
applicants
iii
despite
qualifications
rejected
iv
rejection
position
remained
open
employer
continued
seek
applicants
persons
complainant
qualifications
although
disparate
impact
disparate
treatment
prevalent
modes
proving
discrimination
violative
title
vii
means
exclusive
see
generally
schlei
grossman
employment
discrimination
law
ed
four
chapters
discussing
disparate
treatment
present
effects
past
discrimination
adverse
impact
reasonable
accommodation
categories
discrimination
cf
supra
moreover
either
primary
theories
may
applied
particular
set
facts
see
teamsters
see
mcdonnell
douglas
see
also
teal
employer
must
demonstrate
given
requirement
manifest
relationship
employment
question
new
york
city
transit
authority
beazer
employer
rebutted
prima
facie
case
demonstration
narcotics
rule
job
related
dothard
rawlinson
employer
prov
challenged
requirements
job
related
albemarle
paper
moody
employer
burden
proving
tests
job
related
griggs
employer
burden
showing
given
requirement
must
manifest
relationship
employment
appeals
opinions
properly
treating
employer
burden
include
bunch
bullard
lewis
bloomsburg
mills
nash
jacksonville
segar
smith
app
cert
denied
sub
nom
meese
segar
moore
hughes
helicopters
div
summa
hawkins
johnson
uncle
ben
cert
denied
contra
croker
boeing
en
banc
cf
equal
employment
opportunity
uniform
guidelines
employee
selection
procedures
cfr
et
seq
see
wigmore
evidence
chadbourn
rev
louisell
mueller
federal
evidence
hereinafter
louisell
wright
graham
federal
practice
procedure
hereinafter
wright
thayer
preliminary
treatise
evidence
hereinafter
thayer
langdell
equity
pleading
ed
cf
thayer
quoting
caldwell
new
jersey
burden
maintaining
affirmative
issue
properly
speaking
burden
proof
remained
upon
plaintiff
throughout
trial
burden
necessity
cast
upon
defendant
relieve
presumption
negligence
raised
plaintiff
evidence
accord
fed
rule
civ
proc
pleading
preceding
pleading
party
shall
set
forth
affirmatively
matter
constituting
avoidance
affirmative
defense
cf
thayer
admission
may
course
end
controversy
admission
may
yet
end
party
making
admission
sets
something
avoids
apparent
effect
happens
party
defending
becomes
far
actor
plaintiff
general
seeks
move
favor
whether
original
plaintiff
whose
facts
merely
denied
defendant
admitting
adversary
contention
setting
affirmative
defence
takes
role
actor
reus
excipiendo
fit
actor
must
satisfy
truth
adequacy
grounds
claim
point
fact
law
similarly
suits
alleging
price
discrimination
violation
clayton
act
amended
robinson
patman
act
well
settled
defendant
burden
affirmatively
establishing
defense
either
cost
justification
proviso
subsection
borden
effort
meet
competitor
equally
low
price
pursuant
subsection
standard
oil
ftc
majority
basis
proposition
plurality
opinion
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
turn
cites
authority
justice
blackmun
explained
watson
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
shown
assertion
profoundly
misapprehends
difference
claims
also
makes
passing
reference
federal
rule
evidence
ante
rule
pertains
shifting
evidentiary
burdens
upon
establishment
presumption
bearing
substantive
burdens
proof
see
louisell
wright
solicitor
general
brief
amicus
curiae
behalf
employers
agrees
decision
rule
selection
may
complex
may
example
involve
consideration
multiple
factors
certainly
factors
combine
produce
single
ultimate
selection
decision
possible
challenge
one
decision
may
challenged
defended
whole
brief
amicus
curiae
omitted
discounts
difficulty
causality
requirement
presents
employees
reasoning
may
employ
liberal
civil
discovery
rules
obtain
employer
statistical
personnel
records
ante
even
assuming
generally
true
bearing
litigation
since
undisputed
petitioners
preserve
records
brief
respondents
reply
brief
petitioners
district
found
job
titles
skilled
except
kitchen
help
janitor
oil
dock
crew
night
watchman
tallyman
laundry
gasman
roustabout
store
help
stockroom
help
assistant
caretaker
winter
watchman
watchman
assistant
machinist
deckhand
apprentice
helper
epd
cannery
workers
later
became
architects
air
force
officer
graduate
student
public
administration
college
training
time
employed
canneries
see
app
tr
district
justification
use
general
population
statistics
occurs
findings
fact
jobs
canneries
entail
migrant
seasonal
labor
general
proposition
people
prefer
fixed
location
employment
near
homes
seasonal
employment
unique
salmon
industry
comparable
types
migrant
work
fruit
vegetable
harvesting
example
may
may
involve
guaranteed
wage
thus
census
data
sic
dominated
people
prefer
employment
data
sic
nevertheless
appropriate
defining
labor
supplies
migrant
seasonal
work
epd
rather
confusing
distinction
work
cannery
industry
migrant
seasonal
work
support
conclusion
general
population
composes
relevant
labor
market
example
persons
hired
job
departments
labeled
machinists
company
fishing
boat
tender
petitioner
castle
cooke
bumble
bee
cannery
nonwhites
joint
excerpt
record
exh
categories
red
salmon
cannery
petitioner
wards
cove
packing
whites
nonwhites
hired
exh
points
nonwhites
overrepresented
among
cannery
workers
ante
imbalance
true
racially
stratified
work
force
significance
becomes
apparent
upon
examination
pattern
segregation
within
work
force
cannery
industry
nonwhites
concentrated
positions
offering
low
wages
little
opportunity
promotion
absent
showing
underrepresentation
whites
stratum
result
barrier
access
overrepresentation
nonwhites
offend
title
vii
majority
suggests
work
demands
skills
possessed
accountants
managers
boat
captains
electricians
doctors
engineers
see
ante
least
theoretically
possible
disproportionate
number
white
applicants
possessed
specialized
skills
required
jobs
fact
course
many
jobs
involved
skills
comparable
selective
examples
see
epd
even
district
recognized
employment
setting
positions
finds
skilled
truckdriving
beach
fit
category
jobs
require
skills
readily
acquirable
persons
general
public
appeals
explained
remand
opinion
specifically
companies
sought
cannery
workers
native
villages
dispatches
ilwu
local
thus
securing
work
force
lowest
paying
jobs
predominantly
alaska
native
filipino
departments
companies
relied
informal
recruitment
predominantly
white
superintendents
foremen
recruited
primarily
white
employees
practices
cause
discriminatory
impact
obvious
district
found
downplayed
fact
relatives
employees
given
preferential
consideration
see
epd
nepotistic
hires
four
departments
whites
nonwhites
appeals
noted
nepotism
exists
definition
practice
giving
preference
relatives
hiring
predominantly
white
practice
necessarily
adverse
impact
nonwhites
suggests
discrepancy
economic
opportunities
white
nonwhite
workers
amount
disparate
impact
within
meaning
title
vii
unless
respondents
show
petitioners
fault
ante
see
also
ante
statement
distorts
theory
critical
inquiry
whether
employer
practices
operate
discriminate
griggs
whether
employer
intended
discrimination
irrelevant