## Facts

- Marlon D. Green, a Black applicant, applied in Colorado for a pilot position with Continental Air Lines, an interstate air carrier headquartered in Denver.
- Continental considered and rejected Green’s application in Colorado.
- Green filed a complaint with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act of 1957, which barred refusal to hire an otherwise qualified person because of race.
- After investigation and hearings, the Commission found Continental rejected Green solely because of his race.
- The Commission ordered Continental to cease and desist from discriminatory hiring and to give Green the first opportunity to enroll in the next pilot training course.
- A Colorado trial court set aside the order, concluding the state statute could not constitutionally be applied to flight-crew hiring for an interstate carrier based on interstate commerce burdens and federal preemption; the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court had jurisdiction or whether the state judgment rested on an independent and adequate state ground.
2. Whether applying Colorado’s anti-discrimination law to an interstate airline’s pilot hiring in Colorado imposed an undue burden on interstate commerce.
3. Whether federal statutes or Executive Orders preempted Colorado from enforcing its anti-discrimination law against the airline’s in-state pilot hiring.

## Decision

- The Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court held it had jurisdiction because the state judgment turned on federal constitutional and federal-law grounds, not an independent and adequate state ground.
- The Court held Colorado’s prohibition on racial discrimination in in-state pilot hiring did not unduly burden interstate commerce.
- The Court held federal aviation and labor statutes and related Executive Orders did not preempt Colorado’s enforcement in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Federal review is available when a state court’s judgment rests on its interpretation and application of federal constitutional or statutory law rather than an independent and adequate state ground.
- A state may apply a generally applicable employment anti-discrimination statute to an interstate carrier’s hiring decisions made within the state when the law does not impose a concrete, conflicting burden on interstate commerce.
- Federal regulation of aviation operations or labor relations does not impliedly preempt state employment anti-discrimination enforcement absent clear congressional intent to displace state law or an actual conflict with federal requirements.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Colorado could enforce its anti-discrimination employment law against an interstate airline’s Colorado-based pilot hiring because the state requirement to refrain from racial discrimination neither created an undue interstate-commerce burden nor was displaced by federal aviation or labor law, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Colorado Anti-Discrimination Comm’n v. Cont’l Air Lines, Inc., 372 U.S. 714 (1963)