In the case of International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States et al., 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that a pattern or practice of individual discriminatory acts can constitute a violation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The U.S. government accused both the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and several trucking companies with racial discrimination in hiring practices against minority drivers, arguing they were systematically denied transfer to better jobs based on their race. The court found that statistical evidence showing disparities in job placement was sufficient to prove discrimination had occurred, even without specific instances being identified. Furthermore, it held that once such systemic discrimination is proven by plaintiffs (in this case, the US Government), defendants must disprove its existence for each individual claimant seeking relief rather than requiring each claimant to individually prove he/she was discriminated against.

In the dissenting opinion for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States case, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He argued that it was not Congress' intent to allow courts to impose hiring quotas based on race or gender as a remedy for past discrimination unless there was clear evidence that such discrimination had occurred. Furthermore, he contended that statistical disparities in workforce composition were insufficient proof of systematic discrimination and should not be used as justification for imposing racial balance requirements on employers. Lastly, he expressed concern about potential harm caused by these types of remedies, including stigmatizing beneficiaries and creating resentment among non-beneficiaries.