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

Maurice Rivers And Robert C. Davison v. Roadway Express, Inc.

• 1993 • 511 U.S. 298 • Rehnquist Court
In the 1993 case of Maurice Rivers and Robert C. Davison v. Roadway Express, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court addressed issues related to racial discrimination in employment practices. The plaintiffs, both African-American employees at Roadway Express, alleged that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment which included racial slurs and graffiti. They claimed this violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on...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 Rehnquist Court
Term: 1993
Docket: 92-938
511 U.S. 298
114 S. Ct. 1510
128 L. Ed. 2d 274
1994 U.S. LEXIS 3294
Argued: Oct 13, 1993

Maurice Rivers And Robert C. Davison v. Roadway Express, Inc.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1993 case of Maurice Rivers and Robert C. Davison v. Roadway Express, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court addressed issues related to racial discrimination in employment practices. The plaintiffs, both African-American employees at Roadway Express, alleged that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment which included racial slurs and graffiti. They claimed this violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of race or color among other things. However, their claims were initially dismissed by lower courts because they failed to file complaints within 180 days after each discriminatory act as required under Title VII's statute limitations period. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions stating that if an employee continues to be exposed to ongoing discrimination then each individual act constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice for which charges can be filed within 180 days thereafter; thus making it possible for victims who have been enduring such conditions over extended periods without filing timely complaints still eligible for relief under Title VII.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Maurice Rivers and Robert C. Davison v. Roadway Express, Inc., Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's decision to allow punitive damages in cases of racial discrimination under Section 1981 was not supported by historical evidence or precedent. He contended that at the time of its enactment, Section 1981 did not provide for punitive damages and there is no indication Congress intended such a remedy when it revised this law in 1991. Furthermore, he pointed out that allowing punitive damages could potentially lead to excessive awards which would be inconsistent with traditional principles of justice and fairness. In his view, compensatory damages should suffice as they adequately address any harm suffered by victims of racial discrimination.

Opinion written by Justice JPStevens
Decided: Apr 26, 1994
PDF viewer is not available.
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