In the case of Pullman-Standard, a Division of Pullman, Inc. v. Swint et al., 1981, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to decide whether racial discrimination had occurred in relation to job classifications and promotions at a manufacturing plant owned by Pullman-Standard in Alabama. The plaintiffs were African-American employees who alleged that they were being discriminated against due to their race as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The District Court ruled in favor of the employees but on appeal, this decision was reversed by Fifth Circuit which held that there wasn't enough evidence for such conclusion. The Supreme Court then reviewed this case and decided that it should be sent back down to lower courts for further proceedings because it found issues with how both lower courts had handled certain aspects related to fact-finding procedures and legal standards applied during trial process regarding disparate impact claims under Title VII. This ruling emphasized importance given by Supreme court towards ensuring correct application of law along with proper fact finding processes while deciding cases involving allegations about discriminatory practices violating civil rights laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Pullman-Standard v. Swint, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to require a clearly erroneous standard of review in all factual determinations made by district courts was overly broad and unnecessary. He contended that this ruling would unnecessarily limit appellate court discretion and potentially lead to unjust outcomes. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view on what constitutes a 'factual' determination, arguing that some decisions labeled as 'factual' are actually mixed questions of law and fact or even purely legal conclusions which should not be subject to such deferential review standards. In his view, whether an employment practice is discriminatory under Title VII is one such question - it involves applying legal principles about discrimination to facts found at trial rather than simply finding historical facts like who did what when.