Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
E165271
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
All labels observed (3)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio canonical | 3 |
| Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc., et al. v. Atonio et al. | 1 |
| Wards Cove Packing Company, Inc. | 1 |
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Title VII case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ employment discrimination case ⓘ |
| citation | 490 U.S. 642 ⓘ |
| congressionalResponse | Several aspects of the decision were superseded by statute in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1989-06-05 ⓘ |
| dissentBy |
Harry A. Blackmun
ⓘ
John Paul Stevens ⓘ
surface form:
John Paul Stevens (in part)
Thurgood Marshall ⓘ William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
William J. Brennan, Jr.
|
| docketNumber | 87-1387 ⓘ |
| effectOnLaw | Narrowed the standards for proving disparate impact discrimination under Title VII prior to 1991. ⓘ |
| factualBackground | Nonwhite workers were concentrated in unskilled cannery jobs while white workers held skilled and noncannery positions. ⓘ |
| fullCaseName |
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc., et al. v. Atonio et al.
|
| holding |
In disparate impact cases under Title VII, the proper comparison is between the racial composition of the at-issue jobs and the racial composition of the qualified labor pool, not the employer’s total workforce.
ⓘ
Once a plaintiff establishes a disparate impact, the employer’s burden is one of production to show a business justification, not a burden of persuasion. ⓘ Plaintiffs in a disparate impact case must identify the specific employment practice that is challenged. ⓘ Plaintiffs retain the ultimate burden of persuasion on the issue of whether a challenged practice is justified by business necessity. ⓘ |
| impact | Shifted more of the burden in disparate impact cases onto plaintiffs until the 1991 amendments. ⓘ |
| industryContext | Alaska salmon canning industry ⓘ |
| influenced | Civil Rights Act of 1991 ⓘ |
| issue | Whether statistical disparities in workforce composition alone established a prima facie case of disparate impact under Title VII. ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ John Paul Stevens (in part and in the judgment) ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
surface form:
Sandra Day O'Connor
William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalArea |
civil rights law
ⓘ
employment law ⓘ labor law ⓘ |
| legalConcept |
burden of proof
ⓘ
business necessity ⓘ disparate impact ⓘ |
| legalProvision | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Byron R. White ⓘ |
| overruledByStatute | Civil Rights Act of 1991 ⓘ |
| petitioner |
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Wards Cove Packing Company, Inc.
|
| precedentStatus | Partially superseded by statute but still cited for certain disparate impact principles. ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Civil Rights Act of 1991
ⓘ
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. ⓘ Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust ⓘ |
| respondent | Frank Atonio ⓘ |
| standardOfReview | disparate impact analysis under Title VII ⓘ |
| timePeriod | Rehnquist Court ⓘ |
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
→
fullCaseName
→
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Wards Cove Packing Co., Inc., et al. v. Atonio et al.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
→
petitioner
→
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Wards Cove Packing Company, Inc.