General Building Contractors Assn. v. Pennsylvania.

458 U.S. 375 (1982)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Plaintiffs (P) are a class of racial minorities who are skilled or seek work as operating engineers in the construction industry. They filed a complaint under 42 USC 1981 to redress racial discrimination in the operation of an exclusive hiring hall established in contracts between Local 542 of the International Union of Operating Engineers and construction industry employers doing business within the Union's jurisdiction. The hiring hall system originated in a collective-bargaining agreement negotiated in 1961 by Local 542 and four construction trade associations in the Philadelphia area, three of whom are petitioners in this Court. Under the terms of the agreement, the Union was to maintain lists of operating engineers, or would-be engineers, classified according to the extent of their recent construction experience. Signatory employers were contractually obligated to hire operating engineers only from among those referred by the Union from its current lists. Workers affiliated with the Union were barred from seeking work with those employers except through Union referrals. The collective-bargaining agreement effectively channeled all employment opportunities through the hiring hall. An apprenticeship program was established in 1965 by Local 542 and the trade associations. While enrolled in the program, apprentices are referred by the Union for unskilled construction work. Graduates of the program become journeymen operating engineers and are referred for heavy equipment jobs. The complaint charged that the Union and the JATC had violated numerous state and federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The court found that the hiring hall system established by collective bargaining was neutral on its face. But the court found that Local 542, in administering the system, 'practiced a pattern of intentional discrimination and that union practices in the overall operation of a hiring hall for operating engineers created substantial racial disparities.' The court found that Ps had failed to prove 'that the associations or contractors viewed simply as a class were actually aware of the union discrimination,' and had failed to show 'intent to discriminate by the employers as a class.' Nevertheless, the court held the employers and the associations liable under 1981 for the purpose of imposing an injunctive remedy 'as a result of their contractual relationship to and use of a hiring hall system which in practice effectuated intentional discrimination, whether or not the employers and associations knew or should have known [of the Union's conduct].'The court reasoned that liability under 1981 'requires no proof of purposeful conduct on the part of any of the defendants.' 'Plaintiffs have shown that the requisite relationship exists among employers, associations, and union to render applicable the theory of respondeat superior, thus making employers and associations liable injunctively for the discriminatory acts of the union.' The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the judgment of liability against petitioners by an equally divided vote.