the burger court opinion writing...
TRANSCRIPT
The Burger Court OpinionWriting Database
Emporium Capwell Co. v. WesternAddition Community Organization420 U.S. 50 (1975)
Paul J. Wahlbeck, George Washington UniversityJames F. Spriggs, II, Washington University in St. LouisForrest Maltzman, George Washington University
Auvrtint OnTt of tilt qtr OfattoAtokinton, 204g
CHAMBERS OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
January 24, 1975
Re: No. 73-696 - The Emporium Capwell Co. v.Western Addition Community Organization
No. 73-830 - NLRB v. Western Addition CommunityOrganization
Dear Thurgood:
I join in your opinion circulated December 18.
Regards,
Mr. Justice Marshall
Copies to the Conference
To : The Chief Justiceti
Mr. Justice Brennan ntt
Mr. Justice Stewart Mr. Justice White
CI
0=1
Mr. Justice Marshall7:1
Mr. Justice Blackmun 0
Srd DRAFT Mr. Justice Powell4
Mr.Justice RehnquistSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
From: Douglas; J.Nos 73-696 AND 73-830
Circulate .//)? /
The Emporium Capw ell Co.,Recirculate •Petitioner,
73-696 v.
Western Addition Community On Writs of Certiorari toOrganization. the United States Court
of Appeals for the Dis-National Labor Relations trict of Columbia Cir-
Board, Petitioner, cuit.73-830 v.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.The Court's opinion makes these union members—
and others similarly situated—prisoners of the union.The law, I think, was designed to prevent that tragicconsequence. Hence, I dissent.
Petitioners, who are black and were members of aunion through which they obtained employment by the CEmporium, would seem to have suffered rank discrimina-tion because of their race.' They theoretically had a c.cause of action against their union for breach of its dutyof fair representation spelled out in Steele v. Louisville R.Co., 323 U. S. 192. But as the law on that phase of theproblem has evolved it would seem that the burden on
the employee is heavy. See V aca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171,190, where it was held that the union action must be
"arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith."
n
cnWestern Addition Community n
Organization et al. PT)
[December —, 19741 0
See appendix to this opinion.
To tit The Chief ;TUsffoeMr. Justice BcrMr. Justice L.Mr. Just(Mr. JucMr. JuLyMr. ,3*-
4th DRAFT
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
V
Nos. 73-696 AND 73-830From:
Circulate:
iroulate:RecThe Emporium Capwell Co,
Petitioner,73-696 '14
Western Addition CommunityOrganization.
National Labor RelationsBoard, Petitioner,
73-830Western Addition Community
Organization et al.
On Writs of Certiorari tothe United States Courtof Appeals for the Dis-trict of Columbia Cir-cuit.
[December —, 1974]
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.The Court's opinion makes these union members—
and others similarly situated—prisoners of the union.The law, I think, was designed to prevent that tragicconsequence. Hence, I dissent.
Petitioners, who are black and were members of aunion through which they obtained employment by theEmporium, would seem to have suffered rank discrimina-tion because of their race. They theoretically had acause of action against their union for breach of its dutyof fair representation spelled out in Steele v. Louisville R.Co., 323 U. S. 192. But as the law on that phase of theproblem has evolved it would seem that the burden onthe employee is heavy. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171,190, where it was held that the union action must be"arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith."
The employees might also have sought relief underTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids
TO :
4th DRAFT
The Chief Justice.71
Mr. Justice BrennanMr. Justice StiAi7:trt
Mr. J1- . ,,,h.ar — e''!r. J117,t71, Mit,7)
11
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STAM Dolii“o; J.
The Emporium Capwell Co.,Petitioner,
73-696 v.Western Addition Community
Organization.
National Labor RelationsBoard, Petitioner,
73-830 v.Western Addition Community
Organization et al.
[February —, 1975)
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.The Court's opinion makes these union members—
and others similarly situated—prisoners of the union.The law, I think, was designed to prevent that tragicconsequence. Hence, I dissent.
Petitioners„ who are black and were members of aunion through which they obtained employment by theEmporium, would seem to have suffered rank discrimina-tion because of their race. They theoretically had acause of action against their union for breach of its dutyof fair representation spelled out in Steele v. Louisville R.Co., 323 U. S. 192. But as the law on that phase of theproblem has evolved it would seem that the burden onthe employee is heavy. See Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171,190, where it was held that the union action must be"arbitrary, discriminatory, and in bad faith."
The employees might also have sought relief underTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids
On Writs of Certiorari tothe United States Courtof Appeals for the Dis-trict of Columbia Cir-cuit.
Nos. 73-696 AND 73-830 Circulate:
Recirculate: /C–g/
24wrinut QIIntrt a At Atitett Mate,Tragitingtatt, P. T. ZliAng
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE WM. J. BRENNAN, JR.January 2, 1975
RE: Nos. 73-696 and 73-830 The Emporium Capwell & N.L.R.B.v. Western Addition Community Organization
Dear Thurgood:
I agree.
Nos. 73-696 and 73-830Emporium Capwell Co. v. Community Org.
Dear Thurgood,
I am glad to join your opinion forthe Court in these cases.
Sincerely yours,
Mr. Justice Marshall
Copies to the Conference
CHAMBERS OF
ti 0Oultrturt 0.1ourt of flit ?ffriteb Abate
IlTaoltitmtott, Q. 2aptg
0JUSTICE POTTER STEWART
December 9, 1974
gisiqtrattt aloud of fire 'Anita OtattoA'iint3tan, P. zopkg
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE BYRON R. WHITE
January 20, 1975
Re: Nos. 73-696 & 73-830 - Emporium Capwell Co.v. Western Addition CommunityOrganization
Dear Thurgood:
Please join me.
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Marshall
Copies to Conference
REPRODU FROM THE COLLECTIONS OF THE MANUSCRIPT DIVISIONLIBRARY"OrTONG,
Justice Dougla s
Justice Brenna:Justice Stewar-Justice WhiteJustice Blackmt
Justice PowellJustice Rehnqui
Writs of CertiorariUnited States Court
, ) F Appeals for the .Di`of Columbia
I AFT From: Marshall, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES lated: DFC 6 197
NI) 73-830 Recirculated:
rIre Emporium <
Petitiomq
73-696
Western AdditionOrganizaiJol,
National Labor i t i0iP4
Board, Peti ,oner73-830\\Tester') Additio) ommu nity
Organization et al.
[Decembel Ei74]
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of theCourt.
This case presents the question whether, in light of thenational policy against racial discrimination in employ-ment, the National Labor Relations Act protects con-
certed activity by a group of minority employees to,bargain with their employer over issues of employmentdiscrimination, The National Labor Relations Boardheld that the employees could not circumvent theirelected representative to engage in such bargaining. TheCourt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuitreversed and remanded, holding that in certain circum-stances the activity would be protected. 485 F. 2d 917,Because of the importance of the issue. to the adminis-tration of the Act, we granted certiorari. 415 U. S. 913,.We now reverse,
/d, /3 /e(
2nd DRAFT
To: The Chief JusticeMr. Justice Douglas
Justice BrennanMr. Justice StewartMr. Justice WhiteMr. Justice Blackmi.r.Mr. Justice PowellMr. Justice Rehnquist
From: Marshall, J.SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Circulated:
Nos. 73-696 AND 73-830 Racirculated:LICLU__:2
The Emporium Cap knell Co.,Petitioner,
73-696 v.Western Addition Community
Organization.
National Labor RelationsBoard, Petitioner,
73-830 v.
Western Addition CommunityOrganization et al.
On Writs of Certiorari tothe United States Courtof Appeals for the Dis-trict of Columbia Cir-cuit,
[December ----, 1974]
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of theCourt.
This case presents the i.iestion whether, in light of thenational policy against racial discrimination in employ-ment, the National Labor Relations Act protects con-certed activity by a group of minority employees tobargain with their employer over isslis of employmentdiscriminatiou. Th:=: :79.tiw.ial Labor Relations Boardheir! that the employees could not circumvent theirelected representative to enga ge hi such bargaining. TheiThart of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
,ersed and rema.nded, holding that in certain circurn-staipes ±e activicy be protected. 485 F. 2d 917,1-.;e,21us,.- o r he importanceimportavee of the issue Do the adminis-trator of the we p.r.:inte:i cerf.inrari: 415 U, 5, 913_We. m,,c_v Oz
ghtprtutt glintrt of Litt 'pater statedltittaitington, 20p4
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE HARRY A. BLACKMUN
December 17, 1974
0Re: No. 73-696 - Emporium Capwell Co. v. t*r-
Western Addition Community t%
nNo. 73-830 - NLRB v. Western Addition iCommunity Organization
Dear Thurgood:
Please join me.
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Marshall
cc: The Conference
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Marshall
lfp/ss
cc: The Conference
Atirrime Court of ffrt Itttita Oftdox
In"it4tottnt, P. cf. 20PgJanuary 2, 1975
No. 73-696 Emporium Capwell v. WesternAddition
No. 73-830 NLRB v. Western Addition
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE LEWIS E POWELL, JR.
Dear Thurgood:
Please join me.
Ouprtittt ajoitti of tilt lltrittb Atzdtosifin Lott, p. (4c. zupg
CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
January 3, 1975
Re: Nos. 73-696 and 73-830 - Emporium Capwell v.Western Addition
Dear Thurgood:
Please join me.
Sincerely,
Mr. Justice Marshall
Copies to the Conference