The Burger Court Opinion
Writing Database
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
422 U.S. 405 (1975)
Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington University
James F. Spriggs, II, Washington University in St. Louis
Forrest Maltzman, George Washington University
,E.:4Trrira (Cmu-i
.trtfro.
P. 2optg
CHAMBERS OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
June 19, 1975
Re: 74-389 - Albemarle Pa p er Co. v. Moody
74-428 - Halifax Local No. 425 v. Moody
Dear Potter:
I will file an opinion, per attached.
Regards,
Mr. Justice Stewart
Copies to the Conference
ry
r:4
z0
74-389 - Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
0
74-428 - Halifax Local No. 425 v. Moody
in part.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, concurring in part and dissenting
I agree with the Court's opinion insofar as it holds that the availability
of backpay is a matter which Title VII commits to the sound equitable discrezrz
Fr-
tion of the trial court. I cannot agree with the Court's application of that
z
C.;
0
principle in this case, nor with its method of reviewing the District Court's
findings regarding Albemarle's testing policy.
100101111MMES.
With respect to the backpay issue, it must be emphasized that
Lia
Albemarle was not held liable for practicing overt racial discrimination.
0
0
It is undisputed that it voluntarily discontinued such practices prior to the
effective date of Title VII and that the statute does not -- and could not -
a.
apply to acts occurring before its passage. The basis of Albemarle's
system
liability was that its seniority/perpetuated the effects of past discrimination
and, as the District Court pointed out, the law regarding an employer's
7 1(
,f§aprttitt gjourt t f titt
asilizt4ton,
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS
fittto
(c. 2riA4g
June 20, 1975
Re: No. 74-389 - Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
No. 74-428 - Halifax Local No. 25, United
Papermakers and Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO v. Moody
Dear Potter:
Please join me.
Sincerely,
William O. Douglas
Mr. Justice Stewart
cc: The Conference
.§uvrtztte (gave of kr littiteb 2,tatat
rztafriagtrat P. (q. 2CrPkg
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE WM. J. BRENNAN, JR.
May 22, 1975
RE: Nos. 74-389 & 74-428 Albemarle Paper Co. v. Halifax
Local No. 425, etc. v. Moody, et al.
Dear Potter:
I agree.
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Stewart
cc: The Conference
,itpreutt (Court of tire Arita Mates
aoltingfrat, 7B. zopkg
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE POTTER STEWART
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
No. 74-389
Halifax Local No. 425, United
Papermakers and Paperworkers,
AFL-CIO v. Moody
No. 74-428
MEMORANDUM TO THE CONFERENCE
It will take a few days to print Chart B.
(See pp. 22-23 and footnote 26.) These rather
inartistic xerox copies of Chart B are hereby
circulated.
To: The
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Chief Justice
Justice Douglas
Justice Brennan
Justice White
Justice Marshallt.'
Justice Blackmun
Justice Powell
Justice Rehnquist
From: Stewart, J.
Circulated:
Recirculated:
2nd DRAFT
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 74-389 AND 74-428
Albemarle Paper Company
et al., Petitioners,
74-389
v.
Joseph P. Moody et al.
On Writs of Certiorari
to the United States
Halifax Local No. 425, United
Court
of Appeals for the
Papermakers and PaperFourth
Circuit.
workers, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner,
v.
74-428
Joseph P. Moody et al.
[May
MR. JUSTICE STEWART
1975]
delivered the opinion of the
Court.
These consolidated cases raise two important questions
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat.
253, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103, 42 U. S. C. § 2000 (e):
First: When employees or applicants for employment
have lost the opportunity to earn wages because an employer has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory employment practice, what standards should a federal district court follow in deciding whether to award or deny
backpay? Second: -What must an employer show to
establish that pre-employment tests racially discriminatory in effect, though not in intent, are sufficiently "job
related" to survive challenge under Title VII?
MAY 2 2 1975
Mr. Just:Ice
Mr. Justice
11{i■ILV
:)17.3-las
Erennan
Mr. Justice nite
Mr. Justice Marshall 3
Mr. Justice Blackmun
Mr. Justice Powell
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
cm:
Stewart, J.
Circulated:
Recirculated:
3rd DRAFT
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 74-389 AND 74-428
Albemarle Paper Company
et al., Petitioners,
74-389
v.
Joseph P. Moody et al.
On Writs of Certiorari
to the United States
Halifax Local No. 425, United
Court of Appeals for the
Papermakers and PaperFourth Circuit.
workers, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner,
74-428
v.
Joseph P. Moody et aL
[June —, 1975]
MR. JUSTICE STEWART delivered the opinion of the
Court.
These consolidated cases raise two important questions
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat.
253, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103, 42 U. S. C. §§ 2000 (e):
First: When employees or applicants for employment
have lost the opportunity to earn wages because an employer has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory employment practice, what standards should a federal district court follow in deciding whether to award or deny
backpay? Second: What must an employer show to
establish that pre-employment tests racially discriminatory in effect, though not in intent, are sufficiently "job
related" to survive challenge under Title VII?
JUN 1 7 1976
a
Attprtint Purt tilt liniter Statto
Atskiltotait, p. al. 2op4g
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE BYRON R. WHITE
June 16, 1975
Re: Nos. 74-389 & 74-428 - Albemarle Paper Co.
v. Moody
Dear Potter:
Please join me.
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Stewart
Copies to Conference
To: The Chief Justice
. Justice Douglas
Mr. Justice Brennan
Mr. Justice Stewart
Mr. Justice White
Mr. Justice Blackmun
Mr. Justice Powell
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
From: Marshall, J.
Circulated: JUN 4 1975
1st DRAFT
Recirculated:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 74-389 AND 74-428
Albemarle Paper Company
et al., Petitioners,
v.
74-389
Joseph P. Moody et al.
On Writs of Certiorari
to the United States
Halifax Local No. 425, United
Court of Appeals for the
Papermakers and PaperFourth
Circuit.
workers, AFL—CIO,
Petitioner,
v.
428
74
Joseph P. Moody et al.
[June —, 1975]
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, concurring.
I agree fully with the opinion of the Court. I write
today only to make the following observations about the
proceedings in the District Court on remand relative to
the backpay issue.
As the Court affirms, there is no legal bar to raising a
claim for backpay under Title VII at any time in the
proceedings, even "indeed after a trial on [the] complaint [for injunctive relief] has been had." Ante, at 17.
Furthermore, only the most unusual circumstances would
constitute an equitable barrier to the award of makewhole relief where *liability is otherwise established.
The bar of ladies, predicated on the prejudice to a defendant's case from the tardy entry of a prayer for compensation, should be particularl y difficult to establish.
Backpay in Title VII cases is generally computed, with
respect to each affected employee or group of employees,
by determining the amount of compensation lost*`as a
■■■
To: The Ch:.ef Justice
Mr. Justice Douglas
Mr. Justice Br€nrtan
Mr. Justice Ste:.art
Mr. Justice White
1.,11.r. Justice Marshall
Mr. Justice Powell
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
From: Blackmun, J.
Circulated: (9//05...
Recirculated:
No. 74-389 - Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
No. 74-428 - Halifax Local No. 425 v. Moody
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN.
I concur in the judgment of the Court, but I do not agree with
all that is said in the Court's opinion.
The statutory authority for making awards of back pay in
Title VII cases is cast in language that emphasizes flexibility and
discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy:
"If the court finds that the respondent has
intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging
in an unlawful employment practice charged in the
complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from
engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and
order such affirmative action as may be appropriate,
which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement
or hiring of employees, with or without backpay . . . or
any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate."
42 U.S. C. § 2000e-5(g) (emphasis supplied).
Mr. Justice Douglas
Mr..
Mr .
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
Brennan
Stewart
White
Powell
Rehnquist
From: Blackmun, J.
Circulated:
Recirculated:
1st DRAFT
O
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos, 74-389 AND 74-428
Albemarle Paper Company
et al:, Petitioners,
74-389
v.
Joseph P. Moody et al.
On Writs of Certiorari
to the United States
Halifax Local No. 425, United
Court of Appeals for
Papermakers and Paperthe Fourth Circuit.
workers, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner,
74-428
Joseph P. Moody et al.
[June —, 1975]
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN
I concur in the judgment of the Court, but I do not
agree with all that is said in the Court's opinion.
The statutory authority for making awards of backpay
in Title VII cases is cast in language that emphasizes
flexibility and discretion in fashioning an appropriate
remedy:
"If the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging
in an unlawful employment practice charged in the
complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent
from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be
appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to,
reinstatement or hiring of employees, with or without backpay or any other equitable relief as the
court deems appropriate." 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5
(g) (emphasis supplied).
4-3
2.itilrtutt gland of flit Arita Atatto
*.noiittotott, Q. arpkg
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
June 6, 1975
Re: No. 74-389 - Albemarle Paper v. Moody; and
No. 74-428
Dear Potter:
Sometime next week I hope to circulate a separate
concurring opinion in this case. I can't tell until I
write it whether I will be joining your opinion or simply
concurring in the result.
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Stewart
Copies to the Conference
WHR:6/13/75
Nos. 74-389 and 74-428 - Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court. The manner in which
=
42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) is construed has important consequences
not only as to the circumstances under which back pay may
c74
be awarded, but also as to the method by which any such
award is to be determined.
To the extent that an award of back pay were to be
analogized to an award of damages, such an award upon proper
E-.7]
proof would follow virtually as a matter of course from a
finding that an employer had /lawfully discriminated contrary
=
74
to the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended by the Equal Employment
)-1
Opportunity Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 103. Plaintiffs would be
entitled to the benefit of the rule enunciated in Bigelow v.
RKO Radio Pictures, 327 U.S. 251, 265:
"'The constant tendency of the courts was
to find some way in which damages can be
awarded where a wrong has been done.
Sig The Chief'..dice
c4-
1st DRAFT
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATFST:
Nos. 74-389
AND
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr,
Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
Justice
Doug]as,
Brennan'
Stewart
White
Marshall
Blackmun
Mr. Justice Powell
,
Rehnr
7
74-428
77
Albemarle Paper Company
et al., Petitioners,
v.
74-389
Joseph P. Moody et al.
On Writs of Certiorari
to the United States
Halifax Local No. 425, United
Court of Appeals for the
Papermakers and PaperFourth
Circuit.
workers, AFL–CIO,
Petitioner,
74-428
v.
Joseph P. Moody et al.
[June —, 1975]
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court. The manner in which
42 U. S. C. § 2000 (e) is construed has important consequences not only as to the circumstances under which
backpay may be awarded, but also as to the method by
which any such award is to be determined.
To the extent that an award of backpay were to be
analogized to an award of damages, such an award upon
proper proof would follow virtually as a matter of course
from a finding that an employer had unlawfully discriminated contrary to the provisions of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended by
the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, 86
Stat. 103. Plaintiffs would be entitled to the benefit of
the rule enunciated in Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures,
327 U. S. 251, 265:
" The constant tendency of the courts was to find
some way in which damages can be awarded where
MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST,