Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979)

Read a random definition: contempt power

A quick definition of United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979):

United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979) is a court case where the Supreme Court said that it's okay for companies to have programs that try to hire more minorities who were historically excluded from certain jobs. This is called affirmative action. The case was about a company that agreed to hire more black workers until they had the same number of black workers as the local labor market. A white worker sued because he wasn't hired even though he had more seniority than some of the black workers who were hired. The Supreme Court said that the company's program was okay because it was voluntary and because Congress didn't say that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination in the workplace, couldn't allow affirmative action programs.

A more thorough explanation:

United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979) is a U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with affirmative action programs in the workplace. The Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination in the workplace, does not prohibit voluntary affirmative action programs that seek to hire minorities who were historically underrepresented.

For example, in this case, the United Steelworkers of America (USWA) and Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation entered into a collective-bargaining agreement which provided that Kaiser would fill 50 percent of craftworker trainee positions by black workers until the proportion of black workers at Kaiser mirrored the local labor market pursuant to the Title VII affirmative action provision. Previously, black workers had been unable to enter Kaiser’s craftwork force because black workers lacked craftwork experience from being historically excluded from craft unions. A white worker, Weber, was not selected even though he had greater seniority than many of the black workers selected for trainee positions. Weber sued USWA and Kaiser for violating Title VII for discriminating against white workers.

The Supreme Court ruled that voluntary affirmative action hiring programs that seek to increase minority worker participation in industries which historically excluded minority workers do not violate Title VII. While Title VII prohibits racial discrimination regardless of which race the aggrieved person belongs to, the Court reasoned that the legislative history of Title VII showed a special focus for ensuring black workers can secure jobs in industries they were historically excluded from. Additionally, Congress specifically stated that Title VII does not require employers to adopt such affirmative action plans, so if they meant Title VII to prohibit the voluntary adoption of such plans, it would have explicitly legislated so.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | universal life insurance

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
BookwormBroker
16:10
same
RoaldDahl
16:10
@HopefullyInLawSchool: what if i already got rejected. does it mean anything
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:12
@RoaldDahl: Likely not however it could mean nothing
RoaldDahl
16:15
So if it means nothing does that mean something?
HopefullyInLawSchool
16:17
Possibly
RoaldDahl
16:26
Cool
RoaldDahl
16:26
thank you!!!! i hope it means something
pinkandblue
16:31
fart
IrishDinosaur
16:36
Mich R gang lesgooo
Did anyone else get that random get to know nova email?
HopefullyInLawSchool
17:21
Ya it was sent to all YM applicants
starfishies
17:37
Anyone get the NDLS email inviting you to apply for something even though they haven’t made a decision on your app yet
17:38
Better yet I got the email and I was rejected last month
starfishies
17:38
Wtf
starfishies
17:39
and the deadline is in like a week what is this
any cardozo movement?
BatmanBeyond
18:01
Sent a LOCI via portal, but I'm wondering if email would have gotten me a swifter response
BatmanBeyond
18:02
This whole hold/wait-list/reserve system is a headache
loci already?
BatmanBeyond
18:09
If the odds are like 1-2% I don't think it matters much by the numbers
12:11
I got the same NDLS email
OrangeThing
12:18
I think the user profiles are broken
19:29
Any word out of Notre Dame?
19:29
Only the invitation to apply for LSE
19:29
Anyone received a decision from NDLS?
19:50
when did u guys apply that just heard from umich? they havent even glanced at my app yet
0:30
how am i supposed to spy on people when profile links are broken?
Right. Broken links smh
I've been UR since first/second week of Jan, no updates otherwise, is that a bad sign? At or above median LSAT and above 75th gpa.
The profile links are not working for me. anybody else?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.