In Carson et al. v. American Brands, Inc., T/A American Tobacco Co., et al., 1980, the plaintiffs were a group of African-American employees who alleged that their employer, The American Tobacco Company (now known as Fortune Brands), had engaged in racially discriminatory employment practices which violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal laws. They sought class-action status for their lawsuit but were denied by lower courts on grounds that they failed to prove commonality among potential class members' grievances or typicality between their claims and those of the proposed class. The U.S Supreme Court reversed this decision, ruling that it was an abuse of discretion to deny certification merely because individual damages might have to be determined separately after liability issues are resolved collectively. The court held that if racial discrimination is found to be a company-wide policy affecting all black employees similarly regardless of job title or location within the company structure then such cases can proceed as a class action even though specific harm suffered may vary from employee to employee.

In the dissenting opinion for Carson et al. v. American Brands, Inc., T/A American Tobacco Co., et al., 1980, Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to allow a private right of action under Section 6 of the Clayton Act was not supported by legislative history or precedent. He contended that Congress intended for enforcement to be carried out by public authorities rather than private individuals and highlighted previous cases where this interpretation had been upheld. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative consequences of allowing such lawsuits, including an increase in litigation and uncertainty in business relationships due to fear of antitrust liability. Finally, he pointed out inconsistencies between the majority's reasoning in this case and their approach in other similar cases.