American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson

Background

This case involves hourly production workers (many Black) at two American Tobacco plants and their union, who challenged new “lines of progression” that linked lower and higher jobs and left top jobs largely white. Employees filed EEOC charges and a class lawsuit. The District Court found the lines unlawfully perpetuated past discrimination under the Griggs disparate‑impact standard and enjoined their use; the Fourth Circuit later held §703(h) did not protect seniority plans adopted after Title VII’s effective date.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s majority asked whether §703(h) of Title VII protects bona fide seniority systems even if they were adopted after the law took effect. Relying on the statute’s plain language, prior decisions (like Teamsters), and concerns about interfering with collective bargaining, the Court held §703(h) does not distinguish pre‑Act from post‑Act systems. That means a bona fide seniority or merit system can be defended under §703(h); plaintiffs seeking to invalidate such a plan must prove intentional discrimination rather than relying solely on disparate impact. The Court vacated the appeals court judgment and sent the case back for factual findings about whether these lines are part of a bona fide seniority system.

Real world impact

The decision changes how courts review promotion and seniority rules: bona fide post‑Act seniority systems may be insulated from disparate‑impact challenges unless plaintiffs prove intent. The ruling leaves factual questions about whether a particular plan is truly “bona fide” to lower courts on remand, so outcomes will still depend on case‑by‑case findings.

Dissents or concurrances

Two dissents disagreed: Justice Stevens said a plan adopted in violation of Title VII cannot be “bona fide,” so Griggs should govern adoption. Justice Brennan argued §703(h) was meant to protect only ongoing, vested seniority expectations and not shield the post‑Act adoption of new discriminatory plans.