Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.

• 1981 • 456 U.S. 461 • Burger Court
In Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal court must give preclusive effect to a state administrative agency's decision, as long as it is consistent with due process and does not violate any statute. The case involved an employee who alleged discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after being fired by his employer, Chemical Construction Corporation. After losing at both the New York State Division of Human Rights and in federal...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Burger Court
Term: 1981
Docket: 80-6045
456 U.S. 461
102 S. Ct. 1883
72 L. Ed. 2d 262
1982 U.S. LEXIS 104
Argued: Dec 07, 1981

Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal court must give preclusive effect to a state administrative agency's decision, as long as it is consistent with due process and does not violate any statute. The case involved an employee who alleged discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after being fired by his employer, Chemical Construction Corporation. After losing at both the New York State Division of Human Rights and in federal district court, he appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that his claim should not have been dismissed because he had never received a full hearing on its merits in state court or before an administrative law judge (ALJ). However, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld lower courts' decisions stating that Congress intended for states to play primary role in preventing employment discrimination when it enacted Title VII.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., Justice White, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, argued that federal courts should not be barred from reviewing state court decisions on civil rights claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They contended that Congress did not intend to preclude de novo review in federal court when it amended Title VII in 1972 to allow individuals to pursue their claims initially before state agencies. The majority's interpretation would effectively deny many plaintiffs a full opportunity to litigate their discrimination claims because some states do not provide procedures equivalent to those available at the federal level. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential inconsistency between state and federal interpretations of Title VII law which could undermine its uniform enforcement across states.

Opinion written by Justice BRWhite
Decided: May 17, 1982
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms