Jump to content

New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Negro Alliance et al. v. Sanitary Grocery Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 2–3, 1938
Decided March 28, 1938
Full case nameNew Negro Alliance et al. v Sanitary Grocery Co., Inc.
Citations303 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
Case history
Prior92 F.2d 510 (D.C. Cir. 1937); cert. granted, 302 U.S. 679 (1937).
SubsequentAs 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
MajorityRoberts, joined by Hughes, Brandeis, Stone, Black, Reed
DissentMcReynolds, 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 decision of the US Supreme Court 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.

Arguments

[edit]

The case was argued by Thurman L. Dodson and Belford V. Lawson, both members of the New Negro Alliance (NNA).[1] Before this case, lower courts had largely denied Black organizations the right to "picket for the purpose of compelling race-based hiring."[2]

Judgment

[edit]

The decision was a 6 to 3 majority in favor of the NNA.[3]

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."[4]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Fitzpatrick, Sandra; Goodwin, Maria R. (1990). A Guide to Black Washington: Places and Events of Historical and Cultural Significance in the Nation's Capital. Internet Archive. New York: Hippocrene Books. p. 219. ISBN 978-0-87052-832-3.
  2. ^ Moreno, Paul D. (1999). From Direct Action to Affirmative Action: Fair Employment Law and Policy in America, 1933-1972. Internet Archive. Baton Rouge : Louisiana State University Press. p. 31. ISBN 978-0-8071-2383-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)
  3. ^ The Economic Civil Rights Movement: African Americans and the Struggle for Economic Power. Internet Archive. Routledge. 2015. pp. 47–48. ISBN 978-1-138-95248-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  4. ^ "New Negro Alliance et al. v. Sanitary Grocery Co". FindLaw. Retrieved December 28, 2015. Public Domain This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain.
[edit]
Stub icon

This article related to a case of the Supreme Court of the United States of the Hughes Court is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Negro_Alliance_v._Sanitary_Grocery_Co.&oldid=1330669501"