## Facts

- Black employees at Pullman-Standard’s Bessemer, Alabama plant challenged the employer’s seniority system under Title VII.
- The employees alleged that the seniority system disadvantaged Black workers and was not protected by Title VII § 703(h) because it reflected racial discriminatory intent.
- After a lengthy trial, the federal district court found that differences in employment terms produced by the system were not the result of an intent to discriminate based on race, and therefore treated the system as bona fide under § 703(h).
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the differential treatment resulted from discriminatory intent, and treated intent as an “ultimate fact” suitable for independent appellate determination despite Rule 52(a).

## Issues

1. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), is a district court’s finding about discriminatory intent under Title VII § 703(h) a factual finding reviewed only for clear error, or may an appellate court re-determine it as an “ultimate fact”?
2. If a district court applied an incorrect legal standard in assessing whether a seniority system is bona fide under § 703(h), may the court of appeals decide intent in the first instance rather than remanding?
3. Does disparate impact, without proof of discriminatory purpose, invalidate a facially neutral seniority system otherwise protected by Title VII § 703(h)?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- The Court held that discriminatory intent under § 703(h) is a question of fact subject to Rule 52(a)’s clearly erroneous standard.
- The Court rejected any Rule 52(a) approach that splits factfinding into “subsidiary” facts entitled to deference and “ultimate” facts (including intent) subject to independent appellate reweighing.
- The Court held that when an appellate court believes the trial court used erroneous legal criteria affecting factfinding, the ordinary course is remand for further proceedings unless the record permits only one resolution.
- The Court reiterated that disparate impact alone is insufficient to invalidate a seniority system under § 703(h); discriminatory purpose is required.

## Legal Principles

- A finding about motive or intent is ordinarily a factual determination for the trier of fact and is reviewed on appeal only for clear error under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).
- Rule 52(a) does not authorize appellate courts to treat “ultimate” factual determinations as exempt from clear-error review.
- If trial-court findings are tainted by an erroneous view of the law, the proper remedy is generally a remand for application of the correct legal standard, not appellate factfinding.
- Under Title VII § 703(h), a bona fide seniority system is lawful even if it produces differential outcomes or perpetuates effects of pre-Act discrimination, so long as the differences are not the result of an intent to discriminate because of race.

## Conclusion

The Court required appellate deference to district-court findings of discriminatory intent under Rule 52(a) and confirmed that Title VII § 703(h) protects facially neutral seniority systems unless plaintiffs prove discriminatory purpose, not merely disparate impact.


Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982)