Supreme Court Deals Setback to Civil Rights

    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.