United Steelworkers of America v. Weber

United Steelworkers of America v. Weber is a landmark Supreme Court of the United States case that dealt with affirmative action and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case involved a challenge to a voluntary affirmative action plan implemented by the United Steelworkers of America and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation to address the underrepresentation of African American workers in certain positions. The plan was designed to increase the number of African American workers in skilled craft positions, and it set aside 50% of the openings in a training program for African American employees. The case was argued by William L. Robinson of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Allan Bakke's lawyer, Reynold Colvin, and was decided in conjunction with the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case, which also dealt with affirmative action and was argued by Archibald Cox and Allan Bakke.

Background

The case originated at the Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation plant in Gramercy, Louisiana, where African American workers were underrepresented in skilled craft positions. In response to this underrepresentation, the United Steelworkers of America and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation implemented a voluntary affirmative action plan, which set aside 50% of the openings in a training program for African American employees. The plan was designed to increase the number of African American workers in skilled craft positions and to address the historical discrimination faced by African American workers in the industry. The plan was similar to those implemented by other companies, such as General Motors and Ford Motor Company, and was supported by organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union. However, the plan was challenged by Brian Weber, a Caucasian worker who claimed that the plan discriminated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was similar to the claims made in the DeFunis v. Odegaard case.

Case

The case was heard by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, which ruled in favor of the United Steelworkers of America and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation. The court found that the affirmative action plan was lawful and did not discriminate against Caucasian workers. The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the district court's decision and found that the plan was unlawful. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted certiorari and heard oral arguments in the case. The Supreme Court of the United States considered the case in conjunction with the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case, which also dealt with affirmative action and was argued by Archibald Cox and Allan Bakke. The court also considered the Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case, which established the principle that employment practices that have a disparate impact on protected groups are unlawful.

Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in the case on June 27, 1979, with a 5-2 majority opinion written by Justice William Brennan. The court held that the affirmative action plan implemented by the United Steelworkers of America and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation was lawful and did not discriminate against Caucasian workers. The court found that the plan was designed to address the underrepresentation of African American workers in skilled craft positions and to remedy the historical discrimination faced by African American workers in the industry. The court also found that the plan was voluntary and did not require the Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation to hire unqualified African American workers. The decision was supported by Justice Thurgood Marshall, Justice Harry Blackmun, and Justice Lewis Powell, and was opposed by Justice William Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens. The decision was also influenced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Impact

The decision in the case had a significant impact on the use of affirmative action plans in the workplace. The decision established that voluntary affirmative action plans that are designed to address underrepresentation and remedy historical discrimination are lawful and do not discriminate against Caucasian workers. The decision also established that such plans must be narrowly tailored to achieve their goals and must not require the hiring of unqualified workers. The decision was praised by organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that it helped to promote diversity and address discrimination in the workplace. The decision was also supported by companies such as General Motors and Ford Motor Company, which had implemented similar affirmative action plans. However, the decision was criticized by some who argued that it allowed for reverse discrimination and was similar to the criticism faced by the University of California, Davis in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case.

Aftermath

The decision in the case has been cited in numerous other cases dealing with affirmative action and employment discrimination, including the Johnson v. Transportation Agency case and the Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña case. The decision has also been influential in shaping the development of affirmative action law and policy, and has been the subject of ongoing debate and controversy. In 1995, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in the Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña case, which limited the use of affirmative action plans in federal contracting. In 2003, the court issued its decision in the Grutter v. Bollinger case, which upheld the use of affirmative action in higher education. The case has also been discussed by scholars such as Derrick Bell and Lani Guinier, and has been the subject of numerous books and articles, including those written by Stephen Carter and Shelby Steele. The decision has also been influenced by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Category:United States Supreme Court cases