Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Anderson's Restaurant of Charlotte, Inc.

W.D.N.C.August 3, 1987No. C-C-86-002-PCited 3 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Robert D. Potter
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
bench trial

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The EEOC prevailed on a pattern and practice of racial discrimination claim against Anderson's Restaurant, establishing that the restaurant failed to hire black applicants for waitress and cashier positions from 1979 through 1983. The court granted relief including reinstatement and back pay for qualified claimants.

What This Ruling Means

# Anderson's Restaurant Discrimination Case (1987) **What Happened** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Anderson's Restaurant of Charlotte for refusing to hire Black applicants for waitress and cashier jobs between 1979 and 1983. The EEOC found a clear pattern: the restaurant consistently rejected qualified Black candidates while hiring others for these positions. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled in favor of the EEOC, confirming that Anderson's Restaurant had engaged in racial discrimination. The judge ordered the restaurant to rehire qualified applicants who had been wrongfully denied jobs and pay them back wages for the years they couldn't work there. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case established an important principle: employers cannot use hiring practices that systematically exclude people based on race. The ruling showed that when the EEOC can prove a pattern of discrimination—not just isolated incidents—courts will take action. Workers who face similar unfair hiring practices have legal protection, and employers must show they're hiring fairly. This helps ensure job opportunities are truly open to everyone regardless of race.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Vega
2nd CircuitSep 2015
Remanded
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1941
Plaintiff Win
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Coleman
7th CircuitJun 2017
Remanded

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.