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

International Longshoremen's Association, Afl-cio v. Davis

• 1985 • 476 U.S. 380 • Burger Court
The U.S. Supreme Court case International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Davis in 1985 revolved around a dispute over union membership and employment discrimination based on race. The plaintiff, Winston C. Davis, an African-American longshoreman claimed that the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) and other defendants had violated his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by denying him "A" status membership due to his race which limited his work opportunities...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: 1985
Docket: 85-217
476 U.S. 380
106 S. Ct. 1904
90 L. Ed. 2d 389
1986 U.S. LEXIS 75
Argued: Feb 25, 1986

International Longshoremen's Association, Afl-cio v. Davis

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court case International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Davis in 1985 revolved around a dispute over union membership and employment discrimination based on race. The plaintiff, Winston C. Davis, an African-American longshoreman claimed that the International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) and other defendants had violated his rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by denying him "A" status membership due to his race which limited his work opportunities compared to white members with "A" status who received preferential treatment for job assignments at waterfront facilities in Baltimore. The court ruled against Davis stating that he failed to file a timely complaint within 300 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred as required by law; hence it was not actionable under Title VII even though its effects were ongoing during this period. Additionally, they found no evidence showing ILA’s seniority system intentionally discriminated against black workers or perpetuated past racial discrimination.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the case of International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO v. Davis, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority had misinterpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and its prohibition against racial discrimination in employment practices. He contended that a union could be held liable under Title VII if it participated in discriminatory hiring hall practices, even if those practices were mandated by a collective bargaining agreement with an employer. In his view, this was consistent with Congress' intent to make unions responsible for eliminating workplace discrimination. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that liability should only apply when a union has instigated or encouraged such behavior; instead arguing that mere participation is sufficient grounds for culpability under Title VII.

Opinion written by Justice BRWhite
Decided: May 27, 1986
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