Pullman-Standard v. Swint

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Civil Procedure

456 U.S. 273 (1982)

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedureTitle VIIAppellate ReviewRule 52(a)clearly erroneousfindings of factultimate factdiscriminatory intent

Facts

Respondents were black employees at Pullman-Standard's Bessemer, Alabama plant who challenged the validity of a departmental seniority system maintained by the Company and the United Steelworkers under Title VII. The plant had a history of open racial discrimination in job assignments before 1965, and the challenged seniority system measured seniority by continuous service within a department, generally causing workers who transferred departments to lose seniority. After a new trial limited to whether the seniority system was instituted or maintained contrary to § 703(h), the District Court found that the system's differences in employment terms were not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race. The Fifth Circuit reversed, concluding that the system resulted from an intent to discriminate and was therefore not protected by § 703(h).

Issue

Whether a court of appeals may independently determine discriminatory intent behind a seniority system under Title VII § 703(h), or whether it must review the district court's finding on intent under Rule 52(a)'s clearly erroneous standard. Also, if the district court failed to consider relevant evidence because of legal error, whether the court of appeals may make its own factual findings rather than remand.

Rule

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires courts of appeals to accept district court findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. A finding whether a seniority system was adopted or maintained with an intent to discriminate under Title VII § 703(h) is a pure question of fact, not a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact. If a district court's finding is set aside because it rested on legal error or omitted a necessary factual determination, the usual course is remand for further factfinding unless the record permits only one possible resolution.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Employees at Lakeview Foundry in Toledo, Ohio challenge a departmental seniority system under Title VII, alleging it was adopted to keep Latino workers in lower-paid departments. After a bench trial, the district judge finds the system was adopted for production-efficiency reasons and not because of ethnicity. The court of appeals reviews the same record, concludes discriminatory motive is the better view of the evidence, and reverses without saying the district court's finding was clearly erroneous.

Was the court of appeals' approach proper?

Explanation. Rule 52(a) applies to findings of fact, and the majority treated actual discriminatory intent behind a seniority system as a pure question of fact. An appellate court therefore may reverse only if the finding is clearly erroneous, not merely because it views the record differently. The 'ultimate fact' label does not create an exception, and appellate reversal is still possible if clear error exists.