New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.

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.

New Negro Alliance et al. v. Sanitary Grocery Co.
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

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."[1]

gollark: Except just by saying deleted I suppose.
gollark: How do you expect to bridge deletions to IRC?
gollark: Since the program counter is just memory cell FF.
gollark: MEZ/MNZ = move if equal/not equal to zero.
gollark: .

See also

References
  1. "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.