Brian Weber was 32 years old, and worked as a laboratory assistant at a chemical plant. His company, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, had a policy of allowing whites and blacks into a training program on a one-to-one basis, even though there were many more whites than blacks. This came from a collective agreement with United Steelworkers of America. Weber did not get in. More training would have led to a pay raise. Weber claimed this violated Title VII. The company and the union argued it was pursuing affirmative action to remedy historical disadvantages among blacks.
Judgment
Lower courts
Lower and federal courts supported Weber's claim that Title VII banned all forms of racial discrimination in employment whether against blacks or whites.
By five to two the Supreme Court held that the affirmative action plan was lawful. The majority held that Title VII did not prohibit all kinds of affirmative action programs. They held that the plan of affirmative action must be transitional in nature and serve in fact to correct situations of imbalance by restoring equality at the starting point and should not set out to reproduce them artificially even when the effects of past discrimination have been wiped out. An affirmative action plan has to be necessary aiming to correct a statistical imbalance not result in an absolute bar to hiring non-minorities temporary, with an end date or goal allow flexibility for hiring non-minorities. Chief Justice Burger, dissenting, said he might vote for it if he were a member of Congress but he was not, and Title VII explicitly prohibited that form of discrimination. Not having affirmative action was agreed to be the position when the Act was passed. He finished by quoting Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of Judicial Process 141, warning to beware of the 'good result' and judges exceeding their authority to get it. Justice Rehnquist dissented. He quoted George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-four 181, where in a sudden jump, mid sentence, the government declares war on Eastasia instead, without blinking, and said this was like the approach to interpretation of the majority: He cited two senators explaining precisely that the bill would not require a deliberate attempt to maintain a racial balance,because that would be recruiting on the basis of race, which would be unlawful.
