Question: McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation 427 U.S. 273 (1976)

Two white employees and one black employee misappropriated cargo from one of the employer's shipments. The two white employees were discharged and the black employee was not. The white employees sued the employer for race discrimination. The Court held that Title VII is not limited to discrimination against members of any particular race and applies equally to whites and blacks.

Marshall, J.

Santa Fe Transportation employees, McDonald, Laird and Jackson were separately and together accused by their employer of misappropriation of 60-gallon cans of antifreeze which were part of a shipment they were carrying for one of Santa Fe's customers. Six days later, McDonald and Laird, white, were fired by the employer. Jackson, black, was not. We hold that this unequal discipline based on race violates Title VII even though the employees bringing suit are white. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the discharge of "any individual" because of "such individual's race." Its terms are not limited to discrimination against any particular race. Thus, although we were not there confronted with racial discrimination against whites, we described the Act in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. as prohibiting "[d]iscriminatory preference for any [racial] group, minority or majority."

This conclusion is in accord with uncontradicted legislative history to the effect that Title VII was intended to "cover white men and white women and all Americans," 110 Cong. Rec. 2578 (1964), and create an "obligation not to discriminate against whites," id., at 7218. Santa Fe, while conceding that "across-the-board discrimination in favor of minorities could never be condoned consistent with Title VII," contends nevertheless that "such discrimination in isolated cases which cannot reasonably be said to burden whites as a class unduly," such as is alleged here, "may be acceptable." We cannot agree. There is no exception in the terms of the Act for isolated cases; on the contrary, "Title VII tolerates no racial discrimination, subtle or otherwise."

Santa Fe disclaims that the actions challenged here were any part of an affirmative action program, and we emphasize that we do not consider here the permissibility of such a program, whether judicially required or otherwise prompted. While Santa Fe may decide that participation in a theft of cargo may render an employee unqualified for employment, this criterion must be applied alike to members of all races, and Title VII is violated if, as employees allege, it is not. Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in dismissing the employees' Title VII claims and we REVERSE and REMAND.

1. Does it seem consistent with Title VII for the Court to hold as it did? Why or why not?

2. Do you agree with the employer's "isolated case" argument? Explain.

3. How does this holding square with what you know of affirmative action and race discrimination?