Supreme Court Deals Setback to Civil Rights
Press Release
June 15, 1989

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Loose Pages. Supreme Court Deals Setback to Civil Rights, 1989. 77dff5e4-bd92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/288ffe3d-9020-4605-a611-cf732eb883cc/supreme-court-deals-setback-to-civil-rights. Accessed April 27, 2025.
Copied!
National Office Suite 1600 NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 99 Hudson Street AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013 212 219-1900 Fax: 212 226-7592 CONTACT: Jane Cabot/Brad Rodney Penda Hair Public Interest Public Relations Legal Defense Fund 212/736-5050 202/682-1300 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE SUPREME COURT DEALS SETBACK TO CIVIL RIGHTS Patterson Decision Called "Another Major Setback" by LDF Director-Counsel NEW YORK, NY -- June 15, 1989 -- Julius L. Chambers, Director- Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), termed today’s Supreme Court ruling in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union "another significant setback" to the guarantee of equal employment opportunity for workers of all races. Commenting on the June 15th decision, Chambers, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, said, "Together with its recent decisions cutting back on the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, its ruling in the Birmingham firefighters case, and its earlier decision in the minority set-aside case in Richmond, Virginia, the Supreme Court has taken several regrettable steps backwards and has sent a disquieting signal to all advocates of equal justice. The protections enacted by Congress for minorities and women in the workplace have been seriously eroded by the Supreme Court’s decision today and in recent weeks. By changing the rules, the Court has taken the teeth out of both Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act and Title VII of the 1964 Act." -- MORE -- Regional Offices ‘onions are The NAACP Lapa Dele & Scatonsl Pend, ine: (LDF) is at par Suite 201 Suite 800 deductible for U.S. of the Ni: Association for the Advancement of Colored People 1275 K St. NW 634'S. Spring St. income tax prrposes (NAACE sthoug DF atin ye NAACP nd ter ‘Washington DC 20005 Los Angeles CA 90014 213/624-2405 commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate 202/682-1300 Board, program, staff, office and budget. Fax: 202/682-1312 Fax: 212/624-0075 The full text of Chambers’ statement follows: "In upholding the Runyon case, but creating an exception for racial harassment, the Supreme Court has opened up a loophole that threatens to swallow the protections formerly afforded by the 1866 Civil Rights Act. "Although the Court lets stand the prior ruling that the 1866 Act prohibits discrimination in hiring, it leaves victims without an effective remedy for one of the most prevalent and invidious types of discrimination, racial harassment on the job. Employers who do not want blacks on their work force can simply hire blacks and then harass them on the job until they quit. Moreover, under the Court’s ruling that discriminatory treatment is not covered, racial segregation could be reinstituted in workplaces and private schools. "At the same time, by reaffirming the Runyon decision represents a victory in a battle that never should have been fought. The Court merely upheld its own precedent that no one -- not even the defendant in the Patterson case -- had originally challenged." Chambers continued, "The Court’s decision today is very similar to its ruling last week in Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co. In Atonio the Supreme Court severely undermined the principle established in the 1972 landmark decision of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Griggs was the Court’s most important ruling on the meaning of Title VII -- the employment discrimination provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Griggs was to the 1964 Act what Runyon was to the 1866 Act -- a widely- == MORE) == accepted bedrock ruling. In Atonio, the Court did not directly overrule Griggs, but in fact substantially eviscerated the substance of that decision, holding that employers no longer have the burden of justifying employment practices that produce vast disparities in the racial make-up of a work force. Griggs was a unanimous decision written by former Chief Justice Burger." Chambers further commented, "The Court’s decision today is another major blow in a disturbing series of recent decisions which demonstrated that a majority of the Court is inclined to narrow significantly the statutory protections against racial and gender discrimination and to place nearly insurmountable obstacles before those who seek to vindicate their rights in court. Two major decisions issued last Monday indicate that the Court is more concerned with the interests of white workers. "In the Birmingham firefighters case, Martin v. Wilkes, the Court ruled that no deadline applies to suits by white workers to challenge an affirmative action consent decree designed to remedy prior discrimination against minority workers. Suits to deprive minority workers of a remedy for past invidious racial discrimination can be brought years after a court has found the consent decree to be fair and equitable, resulting in endless litigation. On the same day in another case, Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, the Court ruled that a very short time deadline applies to lawsuits brought by women and minorities to challenge a seniority system intentionally designed by an employer and union to discriminate against women or -- MORE -- minorities. Under the deadline imposed by the Lorance decision, wo: or minorities would have to bring suit even before they were employed in the job that was covered by the seniority system. As the New York Times concluded, it is ‘never too late for white men,’ while minorities and women ’aren’t entitled to even one day in Court.’ "The Richmond minority business set-aside case similarly elevates the concerns of white contractors over the pressing need to remedy the past discriminatory exclusion of minorities from the contracting industry. "We are deeply disturbed that the Court’s rulings today and in recent decisions have left huge gabs in employment discrimination law. "The Patterson decision has the practical effect of denying to those who suffer the emotional pain and indignity of on-the-job racial harassment any effective remedy. All the lower courts and virtually all of the courts of appeal which had considered this question were unanimous in agreeing that Congress intended Section 1981 to include acts of racial discrimination, including harassment. "The Legal Defense Fund will continue its work to devise new strategies to insure that no American suffers the pain and indignity of on the job racial harassment and that every American has an equal chance for meaningful productive employment. "On another issue, the Court ruled that Mrs. Patterson is entitled to a new opportunity to prove that she was denied a promotion because of racial discrimination. Following prior precedents, the Court held that the jury had been improperly instructed that Mrs. Patterson must prove that she was better qualified than the white worker who was promoted." -- MORE -- ' ul 1 Chambers added, "The Patterson case was unique in the level of public support and commitment of resources that the Court’s reargument order prompted. We are especially grateful to the 66 United States Senators, 145 Members of the House of Representatives, 51 Attorneys General, and more than 150 organizations that filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting our position in Patterson." Chambers called upon Congress to take prompt action to restore the previously established rights that were destroyed by the Supreme Court in Patterson, Atonio, Lorance and the Birmingham and Richmond cases, and to rebuild a workable system of justice. Established nearly 50 years ago, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. has been called the major legal arm of the civil rights movement. It is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), although it was founded by the NAACP and shares its goal of equal justice. For more than 30 years, LDF has had a separate board, staff, office, program, and budget.