Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1989

Patterson v. McLean Credit Union

491 U.S. 164 | 109 S. Ct. 2363 | 105 L. Ed. 2d 132 | 1989 U.S. LEXIS 2976 | 57 U.S.L.W. 4705

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Patterson preserved § 1981's application to private contracts but, as the statute was then interpreted, confined it largely to contract formation and enforcement rather than workplace harassment; it also confirmed that a discrimination plaintiff may prove pretext by more than comparative qualifications.

Background

Brenda Patterson, a Black employee of McLean Credit Union, worked as a teller and file coordinator from 1972 until she was laid off in 1982. She sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging racial harassment, discriminatory denial of a promotion to intermediate accounting clerk, and discriminatory discharge. She also asserted a North Carolina claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The District Court refused to send the racial-harassment claim to the jury, holding that it was not actionable under § 1981. The jury found for McLean on the discharge and promotion claims. On the promotion claim, the court instructed that Patterson had to prove she was better qualified than the white employee selected for the position. The court also directed a verdict for McLean on the state tort claim.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held that racial harassment may be relevant evidence of discriminatory intent but does not itself impair the right to make or enforce contracts under § 1981. It also approved the instruction requiring Patterson to prove that she was better qualified than the successful white applicant. The Supreme Court granted review, later ordering reargument on whether Runyon v. McCrary, which applied § 1981 to private contracting discrimination, should be overruled.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the Court should overrule Runyon v. McCrary and hold that § 1981 does not reach private racial discrimination in contracting.

Holding

No. The Court reaffirmed that § 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of private contracts.

Reasoning

Stare decisis has particular force in statutory cases because Congress may amend a statute if it disagrees with the Court's interpretation. A party seeking to overturn a statutory precedent therefore must provide a special justification for doing so.

The Court found no such justification. Runyon had not been undermined by later legal developments, had not proved unworkable or confusing, and was consistent with the Nation's established commitment to eliminating racial discrimination.

Issue #2

Whether racial harassment concerning the conditions of an existing employment relationship is actionable under § 1981.

Holding

No. As § 1981 then stood, racial harassment occurring after contract formation was not actionable unless it impaired the employee's right to make a contract or to enforce an established contract through legal process.

Reasoning

Section 1981 guarantees the same right to “make and enforce contracts” as white citizens. The Court read the right to make contracts as protecting contract formation: a racially motivated refusal to contract or an offer to contract only on racially discriminatory terms.

The right to enforce contracts protects equal access to legal and other dispute-resolution processes for enforcing contractual rights. It reaches, for example, private conduct that obstructs access to courts or a union's racially discriminatory refusal to process contractual grievances.

Patterson's alleged mistreatment—racial comments, unequal assignments, excessive workloads, criticism, denied training, and other workplace conditions—occurred after she had been hired. Those allegations concerned the terms and conditions of continuing employment, not a refusal to contract or an obstruction of her ability to enforce her contract.

The Court reasoned that Title VII, which expressly prohibits discrimination in compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, more directly governs hostile-work-environment claims. Expanding § 1981 to cover the same postformation conduct would also allow plaintiffs to bypass Title VII's administrative and conciliation procedures.

Issue #3

Whether a discriminatory failure-to-promote claim is always actionable under § 1981.

Holding

No. A promotion claim falls within § 1981 only when the promotion would have created an opportunity for a new and distinct contractual relationship between the employee and employer.

Reasoning

A promotion does not automatically concern the making of a contract merely because it changes an employee's job. The statutory question is whether the promotion would create a sufficiently new contractual relationship, so that denying it amounts to a racially discriminatory refusal to make a new contract.

The Court did not decide whether Patterson's particular accounting-clerk promotion met that standard because McLean had not contested the cognizability of her promotion claim at earlier stages of the case.

Issue #4

Whether Patterson had to prove that she was better qualified than the white employee selected for the promotion in order to establish intentional discrimination under § 1981.

Holding

No. The jury instruction was erroneous because superior qualifications are one possible way, but not the exclusive way, to prove that the employer's stated reason was pretextual.

Reasoning

The Court applied the McDonnell Douglas and Burdine disparate-treatment framework to § 1981 claims. Patterson first had to establish a prima facie case by showing that she applied for and was qualified for an available position, was rejected, and that the employer filled the position with a white employee or continued seeking applicants.

Once that showing created an inference of discrimination, McLean could rebut it by producing evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision. McLean did so by asserting that the chosen applicant was better qualified.

Patterson retained the ultimate burden of proving intentional discrimination, but she could show pretext in many ways. She could attempt to prove that she was better qualified, but she could also rely on evidence of McLean's past treatment of her, its alleged racial harassment, or its failure to train her for accounting work. The instruction improperly restricted her to a single method of proving pretext.

Concurrences

Justice Brennan

Reasoning

Justice Brennan agreed that Runyon should remain in force and that the promotion instruction required reversal, but he rejected the majority's narrow interpretation of § 1981. In his view, Runyon was not merely protected by stare decisis; it was correctly decided based on the text and Reconstruction-era history of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Congress had effectively ratified that understanding by preserving § 1981 as an independent employment-discrimination remedy alongside Title VII.

Brennan argued that the Reconstruction Congress was concerned not only with refusals to hire freedpeople but also with discriminatory and abusive conditions imposed after they entered labor contracts. Severe or pervasive racial harassment can show that a Black employee never received the same opportunity to make an employment contract on equal terms with white employees.

Title VII did not justify narrowing § 1981, Brennan maintained. Congress had deliberately allowed the statutes to provide independent and overlapping remedies, and § 1981 offers protections that Title VII historically did not, including coverage of smaller employers, a jury trial, and potentially broader damages.

Brennan also disagreed with the majority's suggestion that a promotion claim requires a new and distinct contractual relationship. Denying a Black employee promotions that white employees receive is, in substance, a denial of equal contractual opportunity, whether or not the promotion is characterized as a new contract.

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens agreed that Runyon should not be overruled and joined the view that § 1981 encompasses racial harassment. He reasoned that an employment contract is an ongoing human relationship, not merely a document fixed at the instant of hiring.

In Stevens's view, an employer that announces discriminatory working conditions before hiring plainly offers a contract on unequal terms. The result should not change merely because the employer conceals that discriminatory intent until after the employee accepts the job or adopts a policy of racial harassment later in the employment relationship.

For at-will employees especially, significant changes in duties and conditions continually remake the employment relationship. A deliberate policy of racially hostile treatment therefore denies Black employees the equal contractual opportunity that § 1981 guarantees. Stevens also agreed that Patterson's promotion claim should be remanded because the jury was wrongly required to find that she was better qualified than the successful applicant.