In the case of East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez et al., 1976, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of East Texas Motor Freight System (ETMF). The court held that two Mexican-American truck drivers who had been denied promotions due to their race could not represent a class action lawsuit against ETMF because they were not typical or representative members of the class they sought to represent. This was based on evidence showing that both drivers had poor driving records and therefore would have been denied promotion regardless of their race. The ruling clarified an aspect of Rule 23(a) under Federal Rules for Civil Procedure regarding prerequisites for a class action lawsuit; specifically, it emphasized that representatives must possess characteristics typical and common with all members within the proposed group.

In the dissenting opinion for EAST TEXAS MOTOR FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC. v. RODRIGUEZ et al., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to deny class certification on grounds of inadequate representation by plaintiffs who were not eligible for promotion due to lack of qualifications. He argued that this ruling was based on an overly narrow interpretation of Rule 23(a)(4) and could potentially undermine future discrimination cases where representative parties may also be found ineligible or unqualified under discriminatory policies. Furthermore, he contended that such a stringent requirement would make it nearly impossible for any employee in a similar situation to challenge discriminatory practices effectively as they would always fall short of being 'typical' representatives due to their disqualification under these same biased systems.