Pollak v. Brush Electric Association of St. Louis was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1952. The case involved a dispute between the Brush Electric Association of St. Louis and its former employee, Pollak. Pollak had been employed by the Association for over twenty years and had been a loyal and productive employee. However, when the Association decided to reduce its workforce, Pollak was one of the employees who was laid off. Pollak then sued the Association, claiming that the Association had violated the National Labor Relations Act by discriminating against him on the basis of his age. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Pollak, finding that the Association had indeed violated the Act. The Court held that the Association had discriminated against Pollak on the basis of his age, and that this was a violation of the Act. The Court's decision in Pollak v. Brush Electric Association of St. Louis was significant because it established that employers could not discriminate against employees on the basis of age. This decision was a major victory for workers' rights and helped to ensure that employers would treat all employees fairly, regardless of their age.

In the dissenting opinion of Pollak v. Brush Electric Association of St. Louis, Justice Black argued that the majority’s decision to uphold a state law allowing for public utility companies to charge different rates based on customer location was unconstitutional and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He believed that this type of discrimination should not be allowed in any form, as it would lead to unequal treatment between customers who lived in different areas and could potentially create an unfair advantage for those living closer to power plants or other sources of electricity production. Furthermore, he argued that such laws were also contrary to Congress' intent when they passed legislation granting states authority over their own utilities regulations; if Congress had wanted states to have such wide discretion over rate-setting policies then they would have explicitly stated so within their legislation rather than leaving it up for interpretation by individual courts. Ultimately, Justice Black felt strongly that all customers should be treated equally regardless of where they live and thus concluded his dissent with a call for greater judicial scrutiny when evaluating similar cases going forward.