New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.

New Negro Alliance et al. v. Sanitary Grocery Co.
Argued March 2–3, 1938
Decided March 28, 1938
Full case name New Negro Alliance et al. v Sanitary Grocery Co., Inc.
Citations 303 U.S. 552 (more)
58 S. Ct. 703; 82 L. Ed. 1012; 1938 U.S. LEXIS 367; 9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 464; 1 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 17,030;2 L.R.R.M. 592
Prior history 92 F.2d 510 (D.C. Cir. 1937)
Subsequent history As amended by order of April 25, 1938, see 304 U.S.
Holding
It was intended by the Congress that peaceful and orderly dissemination of information by those defined as persons interested in a labor dispute concerning 'terms and conditions of employment' in an industry or a plant or a place of business should be lawful.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis
Pierce Butler · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts · Benjamin N. Cardozo
Hugo Black · Stanley F. Reed
Case opinions
Majority Roberts, joined by Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, Black, Reed
Dissent McReynolds, joined by Butler
Cardozo took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Norris-LaGuardia Act sect. 13a

New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552 (1938) was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision, which affects US labor law, safeguarding a right to boycott and in the struggle by African Americans against discriminatory hiring practices. Sanitary Grocery Co. was at the time of the case owned by Safeway Inc.

Facts

"An association of Negroes, organized for the mutual improvement of its members and the promotion of civic, educational, benevolent, and charitable enterprises, requested a Grocery Company to adopt a policy of employing Negro clerks, in the course of personnel changes, in certain stores of the company patronized largely by colored people but in which no colored clerks were employed. The request was ignored, whereupon the organization caused a picket, bearing a placard reading "Do Your Part! Buy Where You Work! No Negroes Employed Here," to patrol in front of one of the stores, on one day, and caused, or threatened to cause, a similar patrol of two other stores."[1]

Judgment

The court concluded that according to the United States Congress "peaceful and orderly dissemination of information by those defined as persons interested in a labor dispute concerning 'terms and conditions of employment' in an industry or a plant or a place of business should be lawful; that, short of fraud, breach of the peace, violence, or conduct otherwise unlawful, those having a direct or indirect interest in such terms and conditions of employment should be at liberty to advertise and disseminate facts and information with respect to terms and conditions of employment, and peacefully to persuade others to concur in their views respecting an employer's practices."[2]

See also

References

  1. ↑ "New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552 (1938)". Justia Law. Retrieved 27 July 2018. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
  2. ↑ "New Negro Alliance et al. v. Sanitary Grocery Co". FindLaw. Retrieved 28 December 2015. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.