In International Bro. of Teamsters v. United States (1977) 431 U.S. 324, the United States brought an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against an employer alleging that the employer engaged in discriminatory hiring patterns or practices against minorities. (Id. at pp. 328-329.) The Supreme Court held that the government had established that the employer engaged in a pattern of discriminatory hiring, assignment, transfer, and promotion policies. (Id. at p. 347.) The court then turned to the remedy available to individuals who suffered from such discrimination. The employer argued that each individual who was purportedly harmed by such discrimination must prove that he actually applied for a position. (Id. at p. 363.) The court rejected this argument, stating: "When a person's desire for a job is not translated into a formal application solely because of his unwillingness to engage in a futile gesture he is as much a victim of discrimination as is he who goes through the motions of submitting an application." (Id. at pp. 365-366.) The court explained, however, that this holding "is a far cry . . . from holding that nonapplicants are always entitled to such relief. A nonapplicant must show that he was a potential victim of unlawful discrimination. Because he is necessarily claiming that he was deterred from applying for the job by the employer's discriminatory practices, his is the not always easy burden of proving that he would have applied for the job had it not been for those practices." (Id. at pp. 367-368.) In International Bro., the government failed to satisfy this burden. (Id. at p. 371.)