Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company, Inc.

PETITIONER: Franks
RESPONDENT: Bowman Transportation Company, Inc.
LOCATION: Congress

DOCKET NO.: 74-728
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

CITATION: 424 US 747 (1976)
ARGUED: Nov 03, 1975
DECIDED: Mar 24, 1976

ADVOCATES:
Morris J. Baller - for petitioners
Michael H. Gottesman - for respondent United Steelworkers of America
William M. Pate - for respondent Bowman Transportation Co., Inc

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 03, 1975 in Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - March 24, 1976 in Franks v. Bowman Transportation Company, Inc.

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment and opinion of the Court in 74-728, Franks against the Bowman Transportation Company will be announced by Mr. Justice Brennan.

William J. Brennan, Jr.:

The case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The District Court held that certain black applicants from employment as over-the-road truck drivers, were in violation of Title VII, discriminatorily denied jobs, on the basis of their rights.

However in fashioning relief, the District Court denied relief in the form of seniority status retroactive to the dates of individual applications for the over-the-road positions.

And the Court of Appeals from the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

We reverse and we hold that an award of seniority retroactive to the date of the individual job application is appropriate under section 706 (g) of Title VII, which, to effectuate Title VII's objective of making persons whole for injuries suffered on account of unlawful employment discrimination, because merely to require the employer to hire the victim of discrimination falls far short of a "make whole" remedy, and a concomitant award of the seniority credit, he presumptively would have earned, but for the wrongful treatment is also necessary absent of course a proper justification, for denying that relief.

The Chief Justice has filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, Mr. Justice Powell has filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in which Mr. Justice Rehnquist joins and Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision in case.