| 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 | 303U.S.552 (more) 58 S. Ct. 703; 82L. Ed. 1012; 1938U.S. LEXIS 367; 9 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 464; 1 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶ 17,030; 2 L.R.R.M. 592 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 92F.2d510 (D.C. Cir. 1937);cert. granted,302 U.S. 679 (1937). |
| Subsequent | 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 | |
| |
| 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 alandmark decision of theUS Supreme Court which affectsUS labor law, safeguarding a right toboycott and in the struggle by African Americans againstdiscriminatory hiring practices. Sanitary Grocery Co. was at the time of the case owned bySafeway Inc.
The case was argued byThurman L. Dodson andBelford V. Lawson, both members of theNew 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]
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]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.m.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding missing information.(August 2016) |
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.
Works related toNew Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Company at Wikisource | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theHughes Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byadding missing information. |