Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee & Training Board v. Eldredge Et Al.
Headline: Denies review of challenge to carpentry apprenticeship hiring, leaving Ninth Circuit decision that allowed relief against the training board to stand and affecting women and many employers.
Holding: The Court denied the petition for review, leaving the lower courts’ dispute over whether thousands of absent employers must be joined in the apprenticeship discrimination suit unresolved.
- Leaves the appellate ruling in place without Supreme Court review.
- Keeps the question of joining thousands of employers unresolved for plaintiffs and courts.
- May force plaintiffs to join many employers or face dismissal of their claims.
Summary
Background
Two women who say they were turned away from a carpentry apprenticeship sued the board that runs a regional training program, arguing the program’s hiring system disadvantages women. The program used a referral list and a “hunting license” system that lets applicants find employers directly; most apprentices got jobs through hunting licenses. The trial court found thousands of employers were necessary parties and dismissed the case because the employers were not joined. The Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal.
Reasoning
The key question was whether courts may order changes to the training board’s procedures when absent employers appear to be the source of the discrimination. The Supreme Court refused to take the case, so it did not resolve whether an injunction against the training board alone can provide complete relief when many employers hire in allegedly discriminatory ways. The denial leaves the lower courts’ differing views on how to apply the rule about joining necessary parties unresolved.
Real world impact
Because the Court declined review, the dispute will continue in the lower courts under the appellate court’s approach unless litigants successfully join the absent employers. The practical fight over how to fix hiring for apprentices — and whether courts can bind nonjoined employers — remains unsettled and may require plaintiffs to add many employers or face dismissal.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Rehnquist dissented from the denial and would have taken the case. He argued the Court of Appeals misapplied the rule about joining necessary parties and agreed with the trial court that absent employers were indispensable for meaningful relief.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?