Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corporation

Ida Phillips, petitioner, filed a suit in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Martin Marietta Corporation (respondent). Petitioner alleged that respondent denied her employment based on her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The District Court granted summary judgment for respondent on the basis of the following: (1) in 1966 respondent informed petitioner that it was not accepting job applications from women with pre-school age children; (2) at the time of the district court decision, respondent employed men with pre-school age children; and (3) at the time petitioner applied for a job, 70-75% of the applicants for the position she applied for (assembly trainee) were women, and 75-80% of those hired were women; therefore proving no bias against women took place, as petitioner had claimed.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the District Court. Petitioner appealed to the US Supreme Court, and the high court granted certiorari.

Donald T. Senterfitt argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were William Y. Akerman, Paul A. Porter, Victor H. Kramer, Dennis G. Lyons, James A. Dobkin, Clark C. Vogel, James T. Ellison, J. Thomas Caldwell, and George T. Edison, Jr.

Lawrence G. Wallace argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Leonard, Robert T. Moore, and Stanley P. Hebert.

Dorothy Keyon, Norman Dorsen, Pauli Murray, and Melvin L. Wulf filed a brief for the ACLU as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Gilbert Friedman filed a brief for the Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association, Local 550, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Jacob D. Hyman, Faith A. Seidenberg, Marguerite Rawalt, and Phineas Indritz filed a brief for NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Sylvia Ellison filed a brief for Human Rights for Women, Inc., as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

No amicus curiae briefs were filed on behalf of respondent.

“Section 703 (a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that persons of like qualifications be given employment opportunities irrespective of their sex. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in reading this section as permitting one hiring policy for women and another for men – each having pre-school-age children. The existence of such conflicting family obligations, if demonstrably more relevant to job performance for a woman than for a man, could arguably be a basis for distinction under 703 (e) of the Act. But that is a matter of evidence tending to show that the condition in question “is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” The record before us, however, is not adequate for resolution of these important issues… Summary judgment was therefore improper and we remand for fuller development of the record and for further consideration…

Vacated and remanded.”

The ACLU filed as amicus urging reversal; the US Supreme Court vacated and remanded the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a 9-0 vote, giving the ACLU an apparent win.