Additionally, some employers extend this de¥nition to unrelated signi¥- cant others of existing employees.

Although not as prevalent as anti-nepotism policies, there is also case law relating to policies that facilitate the selection of relatives. For lack of a better term, I will call these pro-nepotism policies. For example, in EEOC v. Steamship (1995), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) challenged a union policy requiring that new members must be sponsored by existing members. Ÿe policy was defeated via Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. As it turned out, all existing union members were White, as were 30 new members inducted between 1980 and 1986. As a result, each inductee was a blood relative of an existing member, usually a son or brother. Ÿe 1st Circuit Court rejected the policy under adverse impact rules to be discussed in greater detail later.