427 U.S. 273 (1976)
On September 26, 1970, petitioners L. N. McDonald and Raymond L. Laird, both white, and Charles Jackson, a black employee of Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., were jointly and severally charged with misappropriating sixty one-gallon cans of antifreeze from a shipment the company was carrying for a customer.1 Six days later Santa Fe fired McDonald and Laird while retaining Jackson.2 A grievance was promptly filed with International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 988 under the collective-bargaining agreement between the union and the company, but the grievance proceedings secured no relief.3
In April 1971 McDonald and Laird filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging that Santa Fe had discriminated against them on the basis of race in their discharge and that Local 988 had discriminated against McDonald on the basis of race by failing to represent his interests properly in the grievance proceedings.4 The EEOC notified them in July 1971 of their right to initiate a civil action in district court within thirty days.5
McDonald and Laird then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas joining claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.6 Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint.7 In June 1974 the District Court issued a final modified opinion and order dismissing the claims under both Title VII and § 1981.8 The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal per curiam.9 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.10
Whether a complaint alleging that white employees charged with misappropriating property from their employer were dismissed from employment, while a black employee similarly charged was not dismissed, states a claim under Title VII?11
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits the discharge of any individual because of such individual's race. Its terms are not limited to discrimination against members of any particular race.12 The Act prohibits racial discrimination against white persons upon the same standards as would be applicable were they Negroes and Jackson white.13
Yes. Fairly read, the complaint asserted that petitioners were discharged for their alleged participation in a misappropriation of cargo but that a fellow employee likewise implicated was not disciplined and that the reason for the discrepancy was race.14 Under the rule from McDonnell Douglas, an employer may decide that participation in theft renders an employee unqualified but this criterion must be applied alike to members of all races, and Title VII is violated if it was not.15
The District Court erred in dismissing both petitioners' Title VII claims against Santa Fe and petitioner McDonald's Title VII claim against Local 988.16
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1981 affords protection from racial discrimination in private employment to white persons as well as nonwhites?17
42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens.18 The statute explicitly applies to all persons including white persons, and the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 confirms that the bill was intended to prohibit racial discrimination against whites as well as nonwhites.19
Yes. The statute's language applies to all persons, and examination of the legislative history shows that the bill as introduced prohibited any racial discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts against whites as well as nonwhites.20 Senator Trumbull stated that the bill applies to white men as well as black men and that its object is to break down all discrimination between black men and white men.21 Representative Wilson's amendment adding the phrase as is enjoyed by white citizens was a technical adjustment that did not limit protection to nonwhites.22
The District Court erred in dismissing petitioners' claims under § 1981 on the ground that the protections of that provision are unavailable to white persons.23
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Rehnquist