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,