Citation network
Steelworkers Vs. Weber
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 27, 1979
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 193 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Steelworkers v. WeberSearch
-
U.S. 193 (1979) United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. WeberSearch
-
a) Respondent Weber's reliance upon a literal construction of the statutory provisions and upon McDonald v. SantaSearch
-
Holy Trinity Church v. UnitedSearch
-
provided in the Kaiser-USWA plan. That question was Page 443 U. S. 201 expressly left open in McDonald v. SantaSearch
-
in hiring and in the selection of apprentices for training programs. Since, the argument runs, McDonald v. SantaSearch
-
a) and (d) and upon McDonald is misplaced. See McDonald v. SantaSearch
-
the background of the legislative history of Title VII and the historical context from which the Act arose. See Train v. ColoradoSearch
-
United States v. AmericanSearch
-
and must be rejected. United States v. PublicSearch
-
Utilities Comm'n, 345 U. S. 295 , 345 U. S. 315 (1953). See Johansen v. UnitedSearch
-
Longshoremen v. JuneauSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. AbileneSearch
-
The plan does not require the discharge of white workers and their replacement with new black hirees. Cf. McDonald v. SantaSearch
-
grounds are so numerous as to make such exclusion a proper subject for judicial notice. See, e.g., United States v. ElevatorSearch
-
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts v. AltschulerSearch
-
Southern Illinois Builders Assn. v. OgilvieSearch
-
Contractors Assn. of Eastern Pennsylvania v. SecretarySearch
-
Insulators & Asbestos Workers v. VoglerSearch
-
Buckner v. GoodyearSearch
-
F. Marshall & v. BriggsSearch
-
but it does not preclude courts from considering racial imbalance as evidence of a Title VII violation. See Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, considered in University of California Regents v. BakkeSearch
-
was not sufficiently job-related to justify under Title VII any discriminatory impact it may have had. See Parson v. KaiserSearch
-
Aluminum & Chemical Corp., 575 F.2d 1374, 1389 (CA5 1978), cert. denied sub nom. Steelworkers v. ParsonSearch
-
and modeled it along the lines of a Title VII consent decree later entered for the steel industry. See United States v. Allegheny-LudlumSearch
-
Because Congress intended to encourage private efforts to come into compliance with Title VII, see Alexander v. Gardner-DenverSearch
-
practices, the program makes it less likely that such an effect could be demonstrated. Cf. County of Los Angeles v. DavisSearch
-
case. Furnco Construction Corp. v. WatersSearch
-
under Title VII, a mere disparity may provide the basis for a prima facie case against an employer, Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
U. S. 321 , 433 U. S. 329 -331 (1977), it would not conclusively prove a violation of the Act. Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
bounds of Title VII. For example, Title VII provides no remedy for pre-Act discrimination, Hazelwood School District v. UnitedSearch
-
Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
cases that have given that history a much more limited reading than that adopted by the dissent. For example in Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
post at 443 U. S. 240 , the dissent does not point out that the Court's opinion in Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
a previously achieved balance. See University of California Regents v. BakkeSearch
-
union nepotism, Asbestos Workers v. VoglerSearch
-
and segregated apprenticeship programs, F. Marshall & v. BriggsSearch
-
in Title VII. Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
McDonald v. SantaSearch
-
Id. at 427 U. S. 283 (emphasis in original). In Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
Furnco Construction Corp. v. WatersSearch
-
s adherence to the oft-stated principle that our duty is to construe, rather than rewrite, legislation, United States v. RutherfordSearch
-
Ante at 443 U. S. 202 , quoting United States v. PublicSearch
-
United States v. PublicSearch
-
i). v. OurSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Steelworkers v. WeberSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial