## Facts

- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. and the United Steelworkers of America entered a collective-bargaining agreement that included an affirmative action craft-training program at the Gramercy, Louisiana plant.
- Before 1974, the plant’s skilled craft workforce was almost entirely white; Black workers comprised about 1.83% of craft workers while the local labor force was about 39% Black.
- The program selected trainees largely by seniority, but required that at least 50% of trainees be Black until Black representation among craft workers approximated the local labor force.
- In the first year, Kaiser selected seven Black and six white trainees; several white applicants with greater seniority than the selected Black trainees (including Brian Weber) were not admitted.
- Weber sued under Title VII, alleging discrimination “because of race” in selection for a training program in violation of §§ 703(a) and 703(d).
- The district court and the Fifth Circuit held the plan unlawful, reasoning that Title VII barred all race-based preferences, including those in affirmative action plans.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII prohibits a private employer and union from voluntarily adopting a race-conscious affirmative action plan that reserves 50% of craft-training positions for Black employees.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Title VII does not prohibit all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans.
- The Court upheld the Kaiser–union plan as consistent with Title VII’s remedial objectives.
- The Court concluded the plan was aimed at correcting a conspicuous racial imbalance in a traditionally segregated job category, was temporary and goal-linked, and did not impose an absolute bar to white employees’ advancement.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of race” must be read in light of the statute’s purpose to remedy entrenched employment discrimination against Black workers.
- Section 703(j), which states Title VII does not require preferential treatment to correct racial imbalance, does not bar voluntary race-conscious measures; it limits compulsion, not voluntary action.
- A voluntary affirmative action plan may be permissible under Title VII when it:
  - seeks to eliminate a conspicuous racial imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories,
  - is temporary and tied to achieving a remedial benchmark rather than establishing a permanent quota, and
  - does not unnecessarily trammel the interests of nonbeneficiaries (e.g., no discharge or demotion and no absolute bar to advancement).

## Conclusion

The Court held that Title VII allows certain voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans adopted by private employers and unions to remedy stark underrepresentation in historically segregated job categories, provided the plan is limited in duration and does not impose an absolute bar or comparable severe burden on nonminority employees.


United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979)