WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC., V. ATONIO

WARD'S COVE PACKING CO., INC., V. ATONIO, 490 U.S. 642 (1989), briefly redefined the standards used to judge employment discrimination. Since 1971 courts had been following the "disparate impact" theory of the Griggs v. Duke Power Company case. If a plaintiff could show that an employer action harmed a protected group, then the employer had the burden of proving that its actions were a business necessity. The Ward's Cove case shifted the burden of proof to employees, making it harder to prove discrimination. The plaintiffs (nonwhite employees) sued the Alaskan salmon canning company on the basis of a disparate impact theory, providing statistical evidence on the disparity in the racial composition of jobholders in skilled and unskilled cannery work. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had to do more than show disparate impact: they had to prove the specific relationship between employer practices and a discriminatory outcome. In addition, the Court replaced the business-necessity defense with a less stringent "business-justification" standard. Civil rights groups, decrying this and other Supreme Court decisions of the 1980s, fought for substantive legislative amendments, an effort culminating with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. That legislation overturned the decision, restoring the Griggs standards for disparate-impact suits.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Apruzzese, Vincent J. "Selected Recent Developments in EEO Law: The Civil Rights Act of 1991, Sexual Harassment, and the Emerging Role of ADR." Labor Law Journal 43 (1992): 325–337.

Halpern, Stephen C. On the Limits of the Law: The Ironic Legacy of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Gilbert J.Gall/a. r.

See alsoAffirmative Action ; Civil Rights Act of 1964 ; Civil Rights Act of 1991 ; Civil Rights and Liberties ; Griggs v. Duke Power Company .