Goodman v. Lukens Steel Company United Steelworkers of America v. Goodman, AFL-CIO-CLC

Decision Date19 June 1987
Docket NumberAFL-CIO-CLC,85-2010,Nos. 85-1626,s. 85-1626
Citation482 U.S. 656,107 S.Ct. 2617,96 L.Ed.2d 572
PartiesCharles GOODMAN, et al., Petitioners v. LUKENS STEEL COMPANY, et al. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,, et al., Petitioners v. Charles GOODMAN, et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

In 1973, petitioners in No. 85-1626 (hereinafter petitioners), including individual employees of Lukens Steel Co. (Lukens), brought suit in Federal District Court against Lukens and the employees' collective-bargaining agents (Unions), asserting racial discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court held that Pennsylvania's 6-year statute of limitations governing contract claims applied to § 1981 claims, that Lukens had discriminated in certain respects, and that the Unions were also guilty of discriminatory practices in failing to challenge Lukens' discriminatory discharges of probationary employees, in failing and refusing to assert instances of racial discrimination as grievances, and in tolerating and tacitly encouraging racial harassment. The court entered injunctive orders against Lukens and the Unions, reserving damages issues for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals held that Pennsylvania's 2-year statute of limitations governing personal injury actions, rather than the 6-year statute, controlled the § 1981 claims, but affirmed the liability judgment against the Unions.

Held:

1. The Court of Appeals was correct in selecting the Pennsylvania 2-year limitations period governing personal injury actions as the most analogous state statute of limitations to govern all § 1981 suits. Section 1981 speaks not only to personal rights to contract, but also to personal rights to sue, to testify, and to equal rights under all laws for the security of persons and property; and all persons are to be subject to like punishments, taxes, and burdens of every kind. Cf. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 85 L.Ed.2d 254. The Court of Appeals also properly concluded that the 2-year statute should be applied retroactively to petitioners here, even though the court overruled its prior 1977 and 1978 decisions that refused to apply Pennsylvania's 2-year personal injury statute to the § 1981 claims involved in those cases. Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296, advises that nonretroactivity is appropriate in certain circumstances, including when the decision overrules clear Circuit precedent on which the complaining party is entitled to rely. However, until the Court of Appeals' 1977 decision, there had been no authoritative specification of which statute of limitations applied to an employee's § 1981 claims, and hence no clear precedent on which petitioners could have relied when they filed their complaint in 1973. As for the other Chevron factors, applying the 2-year statute here will not frustrate any federal law or result in inequity to the workers who are charged with knowledge that it was an unsettled question as to how far back from the date of filing their complaint the damages period would reach. Pp. 660-664.

2. The courts below properly held that the Unions violated Title VII and § 1981. Because both courts agreed on the facts pertaining to whether the Unions had treated blacks and whites differently and intended to discriminate on the basis of race, this Court will not examine the record, absent the Unions' showing of extraordinary reasons for doing so. There is no merit to the Unions' contention that the judgment rests on the erroneous legal premise that Title VII and § 1981 are violated if a union passively sits by and does not affirmatively oppose the employer's racially discriminatory employment practices. In fact, both courts below concluded that the case against the Unions was one of more than mere acquiescence, in that the Unions deliberately chose not to assert claims of racial discrimination by the employer. Nor is there any merit to the argument that the only basis for Title VII liability was § 703(c)(3)'s prohibition against a union's causing or attempting to cause illegal discrimination by an employer, which was not supported by the record. Both courts found that the Unions had discriminated on the basis of race by the way in which they represented the workers, and the Court of Appeals held that the deliberate choice not to process grievances violated § 703(c)(1), the plain language of which supports such conclusion. Furthermore, the District Court properly rejected the Unions' explanation that, in order not to antagonize the employer, they did not include racial discrimination claims in grievances claiming other contract violations. A union that intentionally fails to assert discrimination claims, either to avoid antagonizing the employer and thus to improve chances of success on other issues, or in deference to the desires of its white membership, is liable under both Title VII and § 1981, regardless of whether, as a subjective matter, its leaders are favorably disposed toward minorities. Pp. 664-669.

777 F.2d 113 (CA 3 1985), affirmed.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and STEVENS, J., joined, in Part I of which POWELL and SCALIA, JJ., joined, and in Part II of which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which MARSHALL and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined post, p. ----. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which SCALIA, J., joined, and in Parts I, II, III, and IV of which O'CONNOR, J., joined, post, p. ----. O'CONNOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, post, p. ----.

Robert M. Weinberg, Washington, D.C., for United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC, et al.

William H. Ewing, Philadelphia, Pa., for Charles Goodman, et al.

Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1973, individual employees 1 of Lukens Steel Company (Lukens) brought this suit on behalf of themselves and others, asserting racial discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,2 and 42 U.S.C § 1981 3 against their employer and their collective-bargaining agents, the United Steelworkers of America and two of its local unions (Unions).4 After a bench trial, the District Court specified the periods for which Title VII claims could be litigated; it also reaffirmed a pretrial order that the Pennsylvania 6-year statute of limitations governing claims on contracts, replevin, and trespass 5 applied to the § 1981 claims and that claims with respect to the period after July 14, 1967, were accordingly not barred. On the merits, the District Court found that Lukens had discriminated in certain respects, but that in others plaintiffs had not made out a case.6 The District Court concluded that the Unions were also guilty of discriminatory practices, specifically in failing to challenge discriminatory discharges of probationary employees, failing and refusing to assert instances of racial discrimination as grievances, and in tolerating and tacitly encouraging racial harassment. 580 F.Supp. 1114 (ED Pa.1984). The District Court entered separate injunctive orders against Lukens and the Unions, reserving damages issues for further proceedings. Lukens and the Unions appealed, challenging the District Court's liability conclusions as well as its decision that the Pennsylvania 6-year statute of limitations, rather than the 2-year statute applicable to personal injuries, would measure the period of liability under § 1981.

The Court of Appeals, differing with the District Court, held that the 2-year statute of limitations controlled but affirmed the liability judgment against the Unions. 777 F.2d 113 (CA 3 1985).7 The employees' petition for certiorari in No. 85-1626 challenged the Court of Appeals' choice of the § 1981 limitations period. The Unions' petition in No. 85-2010 claimed error in finding them liable under Title VII and § 1981. We granted both petitions, 479 U.S. 982, 107 S.Ct. 568, 93 L.Ed.2d 573 (1986). We address in Part I the limitations issue in No. 85-1626 and the Union's liability in Part II.

I

Because § 1981, like §§ 1982 and 1983, does not contain a statute of limitations, federal courts should select the most appropriate or analogous state statute of limitations. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-268, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1941-1943, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985); Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 180-182, 96 S.Ct. 2586, 2599-2600, 49 L.Ed.2d 415 (1976); Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454, 462, 95 S.Ct. 1716, 1721, 44 L.Ed.2d 295 (1975). In Wilson, the reach of which is at issue in this case, there were three holdings: for the purpose of characterizing a claim asserted under § 1983, federal law, rather than state law, is controlling; a single state statute of limitations should be selected to govern all § 1983 suits; and because claims under § 1983 are in essence claims for personal injury, the state statute applicable to such claims should be borrowed. Petitioners in No. 85-1626 (hereafter petitioner), agree with the Court of Appeals that the first two Wilson holdings apply in § 1981 cases, but insist that the third does not. Their submission is that § 1981 deals primarily with economic rights, more specifically the execution and enforcement of contracts, and that the appropriate limitations period to borrow is the one applicable to suits for interference with contractual rights, which in Pennsylvania was six years.

The Court of Appeals properly rejected this submission. Section 1981 has a much broader focus than contractual rights. The section speaks not only of personal rights to contract, but personal rights to sue, to testify, and to equal rights under all laws for the security of persons and property; and all persons are to be subject to like punishments,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
740 cases
  • Campion v. Northeast Utilities
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • February 24, 2009
    ...that general or residual personal injury statute of limitations applies to § 1983 claims); Goodman v. Lukens Steel Company, 482 U.S. 656, 661-62, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987) (holding personal injury statute of limitations applies to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981); Wilson, 471 U.S.......
  • US v. Board of Educ. of Tp. of Piscataway
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • August 4, 1992
    ...of the issue. See Nolan, 197 N.J.Super. at 473-74, 485 A.2d 312.2 In 1987, however, the Supreme Court in Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987), affirmed the Third Circuit which, when Goodman was before it, had overruled Davis. The Court in Goodman ......
  • Rathbun v. Autozone, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • March 18, 2004
    ...the federal statute and must have intended the state law to trigger the same limitations period. In Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987), for example, the United States Supreme Court held squarely that the relevant state statute of limitations gov......
  • Agency Holding Corporation v. Associates, Inc Crown Life Insurance Company v. Associates, Inc
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1987
    ...the federal cause of action should be classified as sounding in tort or contract. See, e.g., Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 662, 107 S.Ct. 2617, 2621, 96 L.Ed.2d 572 (1987) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1981 actions sound in tort); id., at 670, 107 S.Ct., at 2625 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting) (§ 19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • William B. Gould Iv, Kissing Cousins?: the Federal Arbitration Act and Modern Labor Arbitration
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 55-4, 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...its proarbitration labor policy. 134 J.I. Case Co. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 332 (1944). 135 Id. at 335. 136 Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656 (1987), superseded in part by statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1658, as recognized in Jones v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369 (2004). 137 42 U.S.C. S......
  • Statutory Civil Rights - Elizabeth J. Norman and Jacob E. Daly
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 53-4, June 2002
    • Invalid date
    ...131 (1988). 741. Id. at 138-41. 742. 267 F.3d at 1216. 743. Id. 744. Id. 745. Id. 746. Id. at 1216-17 (citing Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 660-62 (1987) (holding that the forum state's statute of limitations for personal injury torts should be borrowed for claims brought under......
  • The Challenge of Deterring Bad Police Behavior: Implementing Reforms that Hold Police Accountable.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 3, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...https://www.history.com/top ics/early-20th-century-us/jim-crow-laws [https://perma.cc/JW67-BCC7]. (24.) See Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656, 672-73 (1987) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (explaining the history of Black Codes in the United (25.) Id. at 672......
  • MUNICIPAL REPARATIONS: CONSIDERATIONS AND CONSTITUTIONALITY.
    • United States
    • Michigan Law Review Vol. 120 No. 2, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...race-based state action as "causing] 'fundamental injury,' " Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 908 (1996) (quoting Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656,661 (1987)), because "'personal rights' to be treated with equal dignity and respect are implicated by a rigid rule erecting race as the sol......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT