Anthony Ash et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (546 U.S. 454)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided February 21, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 546 U.S. 454 · 126 S. Ct. 1195
- Decided
- February 21, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2005
- Vote
- 9–0
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. Petitioners Anthony Ash and John Hithon were superintendents at a poultry plant owned and operated by respondent Tyson Foods, Inc. Petitioners, who are African-American, sought promotions to fill two open shift manager positions, but two white males were selected instead. Alleging that Tyson had discriminated on account of race, petitioners sued under Rev. Stat. § 1977, 42 U. S. C. § 1981, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. A trial proceeded in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. At the close of the plaintiffs’ evidence, Tyson moved for judgment as a matter of law, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 50(a). The District Court denied the motion, and the jury found for petitioners, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. The employer renewed its motion for judgment under Rule 50(b). The District Court granted the motion and, in the alternative, ordered a new trial as to both plaintiffs under Rule 50(c). App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a; see generally Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., ante, at 399-406 (discussing Rule 50). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. 129 Fed. Appx. 529, 536 (2005) (per curiam). As to Ash, the court affirmed the grant of the Rule 50(b) motion, deeming the trial evidence…
Excerpt of a 7,357-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.