# Amicus Curiae Brief — Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0656%3A13

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1989
- **Citation:** 490 U.S. 642

## Text

> ) FILED
Nov 4 1988
No. 87-1387 JOSEPH E SPANIOL, JR

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1988

—_

WARDS COVE PACKING COMPANY, INC.,
CASTLE & COVE, INC.,
Petitioners,
—V,---

FRANK ATONIO, ET AL.,
Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO TIIE UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR TILE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION, NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER,
NOW LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND,
WOMEN’S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND,
AMICI CURTAE, ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

JOAN E. BERTIN
Counsel of Record
KARY L. Moss
ISABE. _E KATZ PINZLER
JOHN A. POWELL
American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
(212) 944-9800

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .... «2. « «- iii
INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE. . eo © «© « &
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .... +++ « 2
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .... +6 « « 10
ARGUMENT . ° © © « « 2D
EIn@re@uction .+«+-+s«eeecee ce oe &

I. THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE
INCLUDING STATISTICAL EVIDENCE OF
RACIAL STRATIFICATION, EASILY

ESTABLISHES A PRIMA FACIE

CASE

OF DISPARATE IMPACT

DISCRIMINATION. . . . « «© «© « «© « 17

A.

Petitioners Have Failed

to Demonstrate that

Observed Disparities

Are Attributable to

Valid Skill or Qualifi-

cations Requirements .... 21

The Data Comparing Non-

White Representation In

Cannery and Non-Cannery

Jobs, Along with Other
Evidence, Demonstrates

the Impact of the

Employers' Practices ... . 30

0 eee ee ee lh
II. TITLE VII REQUIRES MORE THAN A
SHOWING OF BUSINESS-RELATED
PURPOSES TO DEFEND APPARENTLY
DISCRIMINATORY EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES . + cecccecveeee ¢
A. Congress Has Ratified This
Court's Requirement That
Employers Must Demonstrate
the Business Necessity of
Practices Which Result in
Discrimination. ...+s.«. -«
B. Decisions of This Court
Reveal That the Business
Necessity Defense Is An
Essential Element of Dis-
parate Impact Analysis...
on Cost Considerations Do Not
Establish Business Necessity
Or Excuse The Necessity To
PEOVe IF « « 8 « & 6 Soe ee
III. PRINCIPLES OF STARE DECISIS
PRECLUDE ABANDONING OR ALTER-
ING THE BUSINESS NECESSITY
DEFENOB «© © es ce eee eeeee
CONCLUSION ar ee

C. The Employers' Use of An
Undifferentiated Hiring
Procedure Makes the End
Result Appropriate For a
Measurement of Disparate

eile

36

38

41

46

56

59

63

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody,
422 U.S. 405 (1975). .... .. . passim
Alexander v. Choate,
|
Vv j Comm. v. Norris,
rr rrr RUSS . « 5 6 6 ec 32, 58
iday,
UO. wg lg cg fg lw passim
Beazer v. New York City
j ority,
~~~ TCE h. « « 6 6 6 ¢« ce ec « $1
Boston Chapter, NAACP, Inc. v.
Beecher,
504 F.2d 1017 (list Cir. 1974),
cert. denied,
umemeeere Mme CROPS). « « « cw tw cw 47, 49
Catlett v. Missouri Highway & Transp.
Comm'n, 828 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1987),
cert. denied, U.S. __,
108 S.Ct. 1574 (2968). ..-+e 16, 28, 54
Caviale _v. State of Wisconsin
; of Health and
curity,
744 F.2d 1289 (7th Cir. ene «© « « « 48

-iii-

Coble v. Hot Springs School Fisher v. Procter and Gamble
District No. 6, Manufacturing Co.,
682 F.2d 721 (8th Cir. 1982) ....e. 84 613 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1980),
cert. denied,
Connecticut v. Teal, 449 U.S. 1115 (1981) ..... 23, 47, 48
457 U.S. 440 (1982). ...... . passim
Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.,
Craig v. Alabama State Univ., 495 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1974),
804 F.2d 682 (11th Cir. 1986)... .. 10 rev'd, 424 U.S. 747 (1976) .... 14, 24
Crawford v. Western Electric Co., Gamble v. Birmingham Southern R. Co.,
614 F.2@ 1300 (Sth Cir. i980). .-«e« 37 514 F. 2d 678 (5th Cir. 1975). .. 15, 22
Davis v. Califano, Gathercole v. Global Associates,
613 F.26 937 (D.C.Cir. 1979) . « « 34, 28 545 F.Supp. 1280 (N.D.Cal. 1982) ... 59
De Medina v. Reinhardt, Geller v. Markhan,
686 F.2d 997 (D.C.Cir. 1982) ... 26, 28 635 F.2d 1027 (2d Cir. 1980),
cert. denied, 451 U.S. 945 (1981). .. 47
Dothard v. Rawlinson,
G35 Gee Fas CEPT) s « sc eo « Oy Os TO General Bld. Contractors Ass'n v.
Pennsylvania,
EEOC v. Radiator Specialty Co., \. ae ae ee CPOs « 4 6 te ec eee
610 F.2d 178
(ae Gis. 3078). «eo ne eo st i Me HS General Electric Co. v. Gilbert,
429 U.S. 125 (1976) ee wes os co Oy GB
EEOC v. Rath Packing Co., Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.,
787 F.2d 318 (8th Cir.), 635 F.2d 1007 (2d Cir. 1980),
cert. denied, 479 U.S. 910 cert. denied,
(Sa0ewep oc ec ce ewe ew we et ewe es HO, GGe Geme BGO (2961). « . «© « 0 0 « 49,
Firefighters Institute for Racial Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,
Equality v. City of St. Louis, 401 U.S. 424 (1971)... ... . . passim
549 F.2d 506 (8th Cir.),
cert. denied, Grove City College v. Bell,
Gee Weames Bar taerrie + « 6 © © 6 « % 3 ee Ga wame Bee Ceemers © s+ tb eee sews eS
-iv- -vV-

Guardians Ass'n of the New York
City Police Dep't v. Civil Service
: SS

’
ee a en ONG O8. Ss see

Harless v. Duck,
619 F.2d 611 (6th Cir.),

cert. denied, 449 U.S. 872 (1980).

Harrell v. Northern Elec. Co.,
672 F.2d 444 (5th Cir. 1982)...

Hawkins v. Bounds,
752 F.2d 500 (10th Cir. 1985)...

Hayes v. Shelby Memorial Hospital,
726 F.2d 1543 (llth Cir. 1984). .

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois,
S3n Geto Fae CaS77)e« © «© © @ ©

International Brotherhood of
Teamsters v. United States,

Bs ses °° Fi, Fe

Jones v. Lee Way Freight Inc.,
431 F.2d 245 (10th Cir. 1970),
cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 (1971).

Kilgo v. Bowman Transp. Inc.,
789 F.2d 859 (llth Cir. 1986)...

Kinsey v. First Regional Sec.,
557 F.2d 830 (D.C.Cir. 1977) ...

Kirby v. Colony Furniture Co.,
613 F.2d 696 (8th Cir. 1980)...

evie

- « 48

24, 25

48, 49

48, 58

60

Kirkland v. NY State Dep't of
Correctional Services,

520 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1975),

cert. denied, 429 U.S. 823 (1976).

Knight v. Nassau County Council
Service Commission,

649 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1981),

cert. denied, 454 U.S. 818 (1982).

Lewis v. Bloomsburg Mills, Inc.,
773 F.2d 561 (4th Cir. 1985) oe

Los Angeles Dep't of Water &
Power v. Manhart,
SO ee

Marsh v. Eaton Corp.,
639 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1981) ...

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

ie © = DD | eres
Mobile v. Bolden,

Gan Dems Ge tanee) « «© « oe eo 6 6
Monell v. Dep't of Social Services,
Gam Wome Gee Caereis © « « we co 8

Muller v. U.S. Steel Corp.,
509 F.2d 923 (10th Cir.),

cert. denied,
a us Ge COTO). 2 2 ee ee

Nash v. Consolidated City of
Jacksonville,
837 F.2d 1534 (llth Cir. 1988) .

-vii-

NLRB v. International Longshoremen's
Ass'n, AFL-C) iO,
473 U.S. 61 (1965) . «© «© © © © © @© @ @

Nashville Gas Co. v. Satty,
636 Gee 296 CA97T7)e © we wo ee ee 8

ws v. EEOC,
462 U.S. 669 (1983). . «© «© «© «© « «© «© «

New York City Transit

Authority v.Beazer,
440 U.S. 568 (1979). ~. «© «© «© «© « e « »

Orr v. Orr,
440 U.S. 268 (1979). . . «+ «+ «© ee © -

Parson v. Kaiser Aluminum &

Chemical Corporation,

575 F.2d 1374 (5th Cir. 1978),

cert. denied,

owe See COUN). 2% % © a 8 ce 8

Patsy v. Florida Board of Regents,
457 U.S. 496 (1982). .+-+-e«ee © @« »«

Robinson v. Lorillard Corp.,

444 F.2d 791 (4th Cir.),

cert. dismissed,

404 U.S. 1006 (1971) ..... 47, 49,

Rowe v. General Motors Corp.,
457 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1972) .. . 23,

Shidaker v. Tisch,
833 F.2d 627 (7th Cir. 1986),

cert. denied, 5.8. .

108 S.Ct. 2900 (1988). .~. «© «© «© « « « «

-viii-

60

49

58

51

53

23

60

58

48

35

Page
Smallwood v. United Airlines Inc.,
661 F.2d 303 (4th Cir. 1981),
cert. denied,
656 @.8. 1007 (1962) . .~. «+--+ 38, 39
ited Airii P

475 F.2d 216 (10th Cir. 1972). ... . 26

Texas Dep't of Community Affairs
vy. Burdine,

GEO Gebe 2O8 C3083). «- se ce ec eoveve &
Transworld Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston,
SGD Gee 228 (A9ES)e @ wo ec eoveeene eo
United States v. County of Fairfax,

629 F.2d 932 (4th Cir. 1980) ... 15, 28
Walker v. Jefferson County Home,

726 F.2d 1554 (11th Cir. 1984) .. 48, 49
Washington v. Davis,

426 U.S. Zan (3976). «© «© © ec eo eo eo 0 eo SF
W Vv ort Worth Bank & us O.,
487 U.S. -

108 S.Ct. 2777 (1988). . . .«. « « « 17, SE

W Vv outhern Bell Tel. . ne
408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969) ..... 51

Wengler v. Druggists Mut. Ins. Co.,

- 3 Se BR). | ee ee era
Wi lams v. Colorado Springs Schoo
District,

641i F.2d 835

(10th Cir. Bewep «© «© © 0 & 6 le BAe See 8

-ix-

Statutes

Civil Rights Restoration Act,
Pub. L. 100-259 (1988) . . . . . . . . 61

Pregnancy Discrimination Act,
42 U.8.C- §2000e(k). . . . . . . . . . 57

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
29 U.8.C. $794 (1982). «© «© ee eeee &

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964,

42 U.S.C. §2000 et seg. .... + passim

Voting Rights Act,
GB U.BcG. GATS. « ¢ 6 ee eo ee th ew ce SS

Legislative History and Other Authorities

Alaskan Fisheries Hearings: Hearings
Before the Subcommittee on Alaskan
Fisheries, Committee on the Merchant
Marine and Fisheries,

76th Cong., list Sess. (1939) .. 7, 9, 10

Committee on Labor and Human Resources,
U.S. Senate, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.,
Legislative History of the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act of 1978 (1979). . . 58
117 Cong. Rec. 31960 (1971). . « « « « 44
117 Cong. Rec. 32095 (1971)... « « « 44

117 Cong. Rec. 3209? (19M3). /.6- ‘e te. eee

117 Cong. Rec. 32101 (1971). ..... 44
118 Cong Rec. 7166 (1972). .....-. 43

House Report No. 238,
92d Cong., list Sess. (1971 . . 43, 44, 45

Liljeblad, Filipino Alaska: A Heritace
(1980) (Alaska Historical Commission
Studies in History No. 9)... .+«+ «+ «9

S. Rep. No. 97-417, 97th Cong., 2d

Sess., reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code
Cong. and Ad. News 1 ..... + «6 « « 45

., 661 F.2d 303, 307 (4th Cir.
1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 (1982)
Gathercole v. Global Assocs., 545 F. Supp. 1280,

1282 (N.D. Cal. 1982).

59

Geclined to do so. Jllinois Brick Co. vy.
Tllinois, 431 U.S. 720, 736 (1977).

Accorg NLRB v. International Longshoremen
Association, AFL-CIO, 473 U.S. 61, 84
(1985). In deciding whether to overrule an
earlier case, the Court is required to
determine whether that act “would be
inconsistent with more recent expressions
of Congressional intent." Patsy vy. Florida
Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 501

(1982); Monel] v. New York City Department
of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 695
(1978). See also Guardians Association yv.
York, 463 U.S. 582, 612 (1983) (O'Connor,
concurring) (constrained to follow Court's
prior interpretation of Title VI). Here,
overruling Griggs, or any of its essential
elements, particularly the business

necessity requirement, would plainly be

60

“inconsistent” with “expressions of
Congressional intent."

Congress is, of course, free to
reverse a statutory constuction by this
Court that is inconsistent with its intent,
and it has done so on several occasions,
notably when the Court has narrowed the
scope of civil rights laws.39/

In some of these prior instances,
arguably the intent of Congress had not
been as clear as it is here. Congress
could hardly have made plainer its intent

to adopt the entire constellation of

38/ £.g., General Electric v. Gilbert, 427
U.S. 125 (1976) led to the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k) (1982). Grove City
College v. Bell, 456 U.S. 555 (1984) was overruled
by the Civil Rights Restoration Act, Pub. L. 100-
259 (1988). Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980),
was reversed by the Voting Rights Act Amendments of
1982, 42 U.S.C. §1973, et seg. (1982). In Mobile
v. Bolden a plurality of the Supreme Court broke
with precedent and substantially increased the
burden on plaintiffs in voting discrimination cases
by requiring proof of discriminatory purpose.

?
61

holdings for which Griggs stands. Under CONCLUSION

these circumstances, adherence to stare For the foregoing reasons, amici
decisis will not only preserve the respectfully submit that the judgment of
integrity of the judicial process, by the Ninth Circuit in favor of respondents
reinforcing judicial reliability and should be affirmed.

predictability, it will also ensure that
; Respectfully submitted,
Congressional action endorsing Griggs will .

be respected. JOAN E. BERTIN
Counsel of Record
KARY L. MOSS
ISABELLE KATZ PINZLER
JOHN A. POWELL
American Civil Liberties
Union Foundation
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
(212) 944-9800

November 5, 1988

62 63

APPENDIX
Statement of Interest of Amici Curiae

The American Civil Liberties Union
("ACLU") is a nationwide union, non-
partisan organization of over 250,000
members dedicated to protecting fundamental
rights, including the right to equal
treatment under the law. The ACLU has
established the Women's Rights Project to
work towards the elimination of the
pervasive problem of gender-based
discrimination. It has participated, both
directly and as amicus curiae, in the
litigation of many cases before the Supreme
Court and other courts challenging sex
discriminatory practices.

The National Women's Law Center
("NWLC") is a non-profit legal advocacy
organization dedicated to the advancement
and protection of women's rights and the

corresponding elimination of sex
discrimination from all facets of American
life. Since 1972, the Center has worked to
secure equal opportunity in the workplace
through the full enforcement of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, and other civil rights statutes,
and through the implementation of effective
remedies for long standing discrimination
against women and minorities.

The NOW Legal Defense and education
Fund ("NOW LDEF") was founded in 1970 by
leaders of the National Organization for
Women as a non-profit civil rights
organization to perform a broad range of
legal and educational services nationally
in support of women's efforts to eliminate
sex-based discrimination and secure equal
rights. A major goal of the Now LDEF is

the elimination of barriers that deny women

economic opportunities. In furtherance of
that goal, NOW LDEF has participated in
numerous cases to secure full enforcemen*
of laws prohibiting employment
discrimination.

The Women's Legal Defense Fund is a
non-profit membership organization founded
in 1971 to provide pro bono legal
assistance to women who have been the
victims of discrimination based on sex.
The Fund devotes a major portion of its
resources to combating sex discrimination
in employment through litigation of
significant employment discrimination
cases, operation of an employment
discrimination counseling program, and
advocacy before the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and other federal
agencies charged with enforcement of the

equal opportunity laws.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0656%3A13. Public record. Not legal advice.