In Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters et al., the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a case of alleged racial discrimination in employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiffs, eight African-American men, claimed that Furnco Construction Corporation had discriminated against them by not hiring them as bricklayers due to their race. The company argued it hired based on referrals and none of the plaintiffs were referred for work; therefore no discrimination occurred. The court held that while an absence of minority employees does not automatically prove discriminatory practice, neither does a racially balanced workforce conclusively disprove such allegations if there is evidence suggesting otherwise. It was determined that statistical imbalance alone cannot establish a prima facie case unless it's significant enough to suggest employer bias. However, once any form of discriminatory practice is shown (even if only towards one individual), then statistics can be used as part of broader circumstantial evidence proving systematic inequality within hiring practices. Ultimately, this ruling emphasized employers' obligation to ensure non-discriminatory selection processes and highlighted how both direct and indirect evidences can be utilized in establishing whether or not unlawful employment discrimination has taken place.

In the dissenting opinion for Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters et al., Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision failed to fully address the systemic and pervasive nature of employment discrimination, particularly in industries dominated by white males like construction. He contended that statistical disparities between racial groups should be sufficient proof of discrimination unless convincingly explained otherwise by employers. The burden of proof, he believed, should not rest solely on individual employees who are victims of such discriminatory practices but rather on employers to demonstrate their hiring processes are fair and unbiased. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's narrow interpretation of Title VII as it undermines its purpose - to eradicate workplace discrimination entirely.