1977-78 Term Civil Rights Cases in the Supreme Court

    1977-78 Term 

Civil Rights Cases 

In The Supreme Court 

1977 Term 

1. LDF represented the plaintiffs in four cases with 

important civil rights implications decided by the Supreme Court 

in the 1977-78 Term. 

Monell v. Department of Social Services held that a city 

could be sued for damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 if 

it™had a policy of violating the Constitution. This overturned 

a 1961 Supreme Court decision forbidding such suits. The scope 

of the new right established by Monell was not fully delineated 

by the Court, and will require further litigation. LDF is now 

involved in suits in the lower courts raising such issues. 

Hutto v. Fiske held that conditions in an Arkansas prison 

constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment. This was the first major Supreme Court decision 

restricting mistreatment of prisoners, and established important 

principles regarding the rights of prisoners and the remedial 

authority of federal courts. Hutto also upheld under the 1976 

Civil Rights Attorneys Fee Awards Act awards of counsel fees 

against a state. 

Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters was complex employment 

discrimination case against a Chicago firm which had in the past 

had a virtually all-white work force. The Supreme Court held that 

the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of discrimina- 



tion, but remanded the case for consideration of whether the 

defendants had offered sufficient rebuttal evidence. 

Houchins v. KQED held, in a closely divided vote, that the 

press could to a substantial degree be excluded from observing 

conditions in prisons. This overturned the decision of a federal 

court in California which had forbidden the exclusion of the 

press from a county jail. While Houchins is a setback for efforts 

to inform the public about prison conditions, it is unclear whether 

it represents the view of a majority of the Supreme Court since 

only 7 of the 9 Justices participated in the decision. 

2. The Court decided two cases in which LDF had filed 

Amicus briefs. 

Bakke v. Regents of University of California held that race 

could be considered in admitting applicants to medical school, 

but struck down the program at the University of California at 

Davis. The decision leaves it up to colleges and universities to 

frame affirmative action admission policies that will pass the 

constitutional test. Because the court was closely divided future 

litigation is expected on the issue. 

Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC held that a defendant in 

a Title VII case can only obtain an award of counsel fees if the 

plaintiff acted in bad faith. This was the position advocated by 

LDF since a broader rule would have deterred plaintiffs from 

filing suits under Title VII. 

= 



1978 Term 

1. LDF represents the plaintiff in two related cases 

challenging the use of at-large elections in Mobile, Alabama. 

City of Mobile v. Bolden and Brown v. Moore.. Bolden involves 

the use of at-large elections to choose the city commission, 

while Brown concerns the election of the school board. At-large 

elections are the single most important device now in effect in 

the south for keeping blacks out of public office, and LDF has 

won a number of suits which forbade such elections and resulted 

in the election of black public officials. In Bolden and Brown 

LDF contends that the at-large plans were maintained for the 

purpose of excluding blacks from public office, and that the 

plans were unconstitutional because they operated in combination 

with white bloc voting to prevent the election of black candidates. 

2. LDF has petitions for writs of certiorari pending in 

three cases. 

Ryder v. Johnson Truck Lines raises the question of whether 

a seniority system which perpetuates the effects of past dis- 

crimination in employment violates the 1866 Civil Rights Act. 

The Supreme Court in 1976 severely limited suits under Title VII 

against such seniority systems. 

Lewis v. Philip Morris Co. is a Title VII action alleging 

discrimination on the basis of race and sex in the assignment of 

employees in a Virginia tobacco plant. Although 61% of blacks, 

but only 13% of whites, had been assigned to the poorly paid 



seasonal work, the court of appeals found there had been no 

discrimination. LDF contends the court of appeals applied the 

wrong legal standard. 

In Jones v. City of Memphis LDF contends that a city should 

be held vicariously liable in an action under the Fourteenth 

Amendment if its police beat a citizen in violation of his 

constitutional rights. 

3. LDF has filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff 

in County of Los Angeles v. Davis. LDF's brief urges that the 1866 

Civil Rights Act prohibits the use of employment tests which have 

the effect of eliminating virtually all black and Mexican-Ameri- 

can applicants. 

4, LDF will be filing an amicus brief in Weber v. Kaiser 

Aluminum. The white plaintiff in Weber claims that race conscious 

affirmative action in employment violates Title VII. LDF will 

urge that Title VII was not intended to prohibit such affirma- 

tive action programs, and that the Executive Order requiring 

federal contractors to establish such programs is valid.