Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 42
About This Presentation
Title:

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California

Description:

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California Genevieve Mackay, Brent Movitz, Kaitlin Powell Affirmative Action since Johnson 2003 (same day as ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:56
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 43
Provided by: Bre15
Learn more at: http://www.kentlaw.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California


1
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara
County, California
  • Genevieve Mackay, Brent Movitz, Kaitlin Powell

2
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • Foundation of Affirmative Action 
  • 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson
  • Facts Plessy refused to sit in a rail carriage
    designated for African Americans. He was
    convicted of violating a Louisiana statute which
    segregated trains.
  • Rule Segregation was did not violate the 14th
    amendment as long as the facilities were
    substantially equal.
  • Rationale Legislation and law could not change
    discriminative attitudes in society

3
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • Foundation of Affirmative Action 
  • 1954 Brown v. Board of Education
  • Facts African Americans wanted to attend a white
    public school.
  • Rule The 14th Amendment prohibits public schools
    from segregating based on race.
  • Rationale Separate but equal is a fallacy.
    However, because Justice Warren conformed his
    holding to the facts of the case, he provided
    little insight as to what protections should be
    afforded to African Americans or others who face
    discrimination.

4
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • Foundation of Affirmative Action 
  • 1961 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
    (EEOC)
  • President Kennedy signed an Executive Order which
    formed the EEOC. The order promoted affirmative
    action to prohibit discrimination based on
    race, creed, color, or national origin.
  • 1963 Equal Pay Act
  • Passed by Congress before Kennedys
    assassination, the Equal Pay Act stated that
    private companies had to pay women the same
    compensation as men for performing the same work.
  • Lilly Ledbetter Act http//vimeo.com/3097801

5
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • Foundation of Affirmative Action 
  • 1964 The Civil Rights Act of 1964
  • All persons within the jurisdiction of the
    United States shall have the same rights . . .
    and equal benefit of all laws . . . as are
    enjoyed by white citizens. 42 U.S.C.A 1981(a)
    (West 2009). After Kennedys assassination,
    during Johnsons presidency, in spite of the
    protests of Southern Democrats, the U.S. Congress
    passed the Civil Rights Act.
  • Johnson Audio
  • What ideal of freedom is our generation
    forging, expanding, and renewing?
  • Domestically? Internationally?
  • Does our generation work to widen opportunities
    for race/sex-based minorities?

6
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • Foundation of Affirmative Action 
  • 1964-1967 Johnson and Affirmative Action
  • You do not take a person who for years has been
    hobbled by chains, and liberate him, bring him up
    to the starting line of a race, and then say,
    You are free to compete with all the others,
    and still justly believe that you have been
    completely fair. Thus, it is not enough just to
    open the gates of opportunity, all of our
    citizens must have the ability to walk through
    those gates.
  • President Johnson speaking at Howard University
    after Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of
    1964. Urofsky, Affirmative Action on Trial Sex
    Discrimination in Johnson v. Santa Clara at 17.
  • From 1965-1967 Johnson signed three Executive
    Orders which required federal contractors to
    recruit, hire and promote minorities and women.

7
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • Affirmative Action Challenged in Court
  • 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,
  • Facts Duke Power Company required employees to
    have a high school diploma and pass a
    standardized general intelligence test in order
    to be promoted.
  • Rules Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    expressly prohibits employment discrimination.
    Barriers that favor white employees in employment
    decisions must be removed.
  • Employment actions that appear race neutral, but
    have a disparate impact are discriminatory.

8
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • Affirmative Action Challenged in Court
  • 1971 Griggs v. Duke Power Co.,
  • Rationale Justice Burger reasoned that a high
    school diploma and the standardized tests were
    not related to job performance. Burger explained
    that because African Americans received inferior
    schooling they were unlikely to perform as well
    on tests as the white workers who received
    superior schooling. Burger stated that Congress
    has now required that the posture and condition
    of the job seeker be taken into account.

9
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • Affirmative Action Challenged in Court
  • 1978 Regents of U. of Cal. v. Bakke
  • Facts Allan Bakke, a white male, sued the
    University of California when it denied him
    admission to medical school while it reserved
    sixteen out of one hundred spots for minority
    students.
  • Rule An affirmative action plan which includes
    the use of quotas unconstitutionally
    discriminates against non-minorities under the
    14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights
    Act of 1964 (prohibits recipients of federal
    funds to discriminate based on race).

10
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • Affirmative Action Challenged in Court
  • 1978 Regents of U. of Cal. v. Bakke
  • Rationale Foreshadowing difficult affirmative
    action decisions, the Court had a plurality
    decision. However, Powells opinion has been
    relied on in proceeding cases.
  • Powell stated that affirmative action plans are
    allowed under the Equal Protection Clause because
    the state has a substantial interest in promoting
    educational diversity. However, the universitys
    plan was flawed because it used quotas. Justice
    Powell explained that diversity that furthers a
    compelling state interest encompasses a far
    broader array of qualifications than race. By
    reserving sixteen spots for candidates based
    solely on race, the plan would not necessarily
    provide genuine diversity.

11
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • The Affirmative Action Plan Balance reflected in
    Bakke
  • Meg Greenfield, a writer at Newsweek, predicted
    the Courts decision. She suggested that
    although it seemed to be indecisive, the decision
    emphasized the balance needed for a productive
    affirmative action plan.
  • 1) allowed employers to strive for equality in
    the workplace caused by past discrimination and
  • 2) tightened the connection between the steps
    taken and the discrimination remedied so as to
    prevent unnecessary barriers for non-minorities

12
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • 1979 United Steelworkers of Am. v. Weber
  • Facts A white workers sued his employer after
    the company accepted an African American into a
    training program instead of Weber, even though
    Weber had more seniority.
  • Rule Title VII permitted voluntarily adopted
    affirmative action plans in the private sector.

13
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • 1979 United Steelworkers of Am. v. Weber
  • Rationale Brennan explained that the companys
    plan was within the spirit . . . and intention
    of the legislature when it enacted the Civil
    Rights Act because the plan would open employment
    opportunities for African Americans.
  • Justice Blackmun, in a concurrence, explained
    that Brennan ignored the plain meaning of Title
    VII. However, Blackmun explained that companies
    which have committed arguable violations of
    Title VII by discriminating in the past should be
    able to correct their misdeeds through
    affirmative action plans.

14
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • 1979 United Steelworkers of Am. v. Weber
  • Dissent Justice Rehnquist dissented and relied
    on the plain meaning and precedent in which the
    Supreme Court had written, Title VII is to
    provide an equal opportunity for each applicant
    regardless of race, without regard to whether
    members of the applicants race are
    proportionately represented in the work force.

15
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • The Meaning of Discrimination
  • The split in United Steelworkers mirrored the
    split in Bakke. On one side, the liberal
    Justices aligned with the premise that
    race-conscious policies could remedy past
    discrimination. On the other side, the
    conservative Justices clung to the value that in
    order to have a society free from discrimination,
    the laws of society must mandate that no type of
    discrimination is acceptable.

16
Legal and Social Development of Affirmative Action
  • 1980 Fullilove v. Klutznick
  • Facts The Public Works Employment Act provided
    that in order to receive federal funds for public
    works, the recipient, for example a city or
    state, must award 10 of the funds to minority
    business enterprises (MBEs).
  • Rule Congress can pass legislation with the
    goal of correcting past economic disparities
    among minorities without violating the 14th
    Amendment.
  • Rationale The Court, once again in a plurality
    decision, reasoned that remedial programs allowed
    minorities to be lifted to a level in which they
    could effectively participate.

17
Mr. Devlin Schoop, Partner at Laner Muchin
Johnson v. Santa Clara
  • Graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago
    and the University of Illinois Law Review.
  • Previous Experience
  • Worked as a judicial clerk to Judge Manning of
    the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of Illinois.
  • Lawyer at large Chicago-based firm where he
    specialized in complex commercial litigation and
    employment and civil rights litigation.
  • Mr. Schoop became a partner at Laner Muchin in
    2008 and represents employers in employment
    discrimination, wrongful discharge, employment,
    civil rights litigation.
  • Mr. Schoop is a member of the American Bar
    Association, the Seventh Circuit Bar and the
    Federal Bar Association.  He is an Associate
    Articles Editor for the Federal Civil Practice
    Section Council of the Illinois State Bar
    Association and has authored several articles
    regarding civil practice in the various federal
    courts within Illinois.  Mr. Schoop authored the
    chapter on age discrimination in the 2007 edition
    of the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal
    Educations Employment Discrimination Handbook. 

18
Nature of the Controversy
Johnson v. Santa Clara
  • Diane Joyce and Paul Johnson both were contending
    for road dispatcher at Santa Clara Transportation
    Agency.
  • Diane Joyce rebel rousing, skirt-wearing
    person
  • Learned to stand up for her rights.
  • Paul Johnson good ol boy
  • Felt he deserved the job and she just got it for
    her gender.
  • On the road crew different standards
  • Joyce never fit in
  • Fought to get the same opportunities as men.

19
Affirmative Action - Santa Clara Plan
Johnson v. Santa Clara
  • Santa Clara was only 3.4 Black, although the
    Hispanic population was 17.7 and the Asian
    population 7.7.
  • While women were 36.4 of the Santa Clara labor
    force, only 22.4 of Santa Clara county employees
    were women.
  • Most held low level positions conventionally held
    by women

20
Affirmative Action - Santa Clara Plan
Johnson v. Santa Clara
  • Santa Clara had many women in politics
  • May explain support of Affirmative Action plan
  • hiring, training, and promotion of minorities
    and womenin all major job classifications where
    they are underrepresented with a long-term goal
    of having a work-force with the same Agency labor
    force composition of minorities and women as in
    the area labor force.
  • Idealistic long-term goals, but realistic
    short-term objectives.
  • Achievable goals v. implementing quotas

21
Trial Court
Johnson v. Santa Clara
  • Diane Joyce very apprehensive. Everyone else
    confident.
  • Johnson and Attorney thought clear-cut
    discrimination case
  • County Attorney equally certain acted in
    discretion Difficult to explain why need
    affirmative action plan without recognizing past
    injustices.
  • Judge Ignam?county affirmative action plan did
    not meet Weber standards.
  • Narrow ruling Affirmative Action plan remains in
    tact with minor changes.

22
Appellate Court
Johnson v. Santa Clara
  • Placed on short calendar at first, then given
    more time to argue.
  • Handed down decision that Judge Ignam construed
    Title VII and Weber too narrowly and the Santa
    Clara Countys affirmative action plan met the
    Weber requirements.
  • Paul Johnson already had Diane Joyces position
    Joyce in South Yard
  • Johnson felt frustrated
  • Inquires at public interest law firms

23
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • The Supreme Court Decision
  • Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the
    court in which justices Marshall, Blackmun,
    Powell, and Stevens joined. The court held
  • The Agency appropriately took into account
    Joyces sex as one factor in determining that she
    should be promoted. The Agengys Plan represents
    a moderate, flexible, case-by-case approach to
    effecting a gradual improvement in the
    representation of minorities and women in the
    Agencys work force, and is fully consistent with
    Title VII.

24
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • Who Bears the Burden of Proof that the Agencys
    plan violates Title VII?
  • Once Johnson established a prima facie case that
    race or sex had been taken into account in the
    Agencys employment decision, the burden shifts
    to the Agency to articulate a nondiscriminatory
    rationale for that decision (ie an affirmative
    action plan). Once the Agency had done so the
    burden shifted back to Johnson to prove that the
    plan was invalid and that the Agencys
    justification was pretextual.

25
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • This burden shifting means that the Court had to
    determine two things
  • 1. Was the Agencys affirmative action plan
    legal or did it violate Title VII?
  • 2. Part 1 - Was the employment decision made
    pursuant to a plan prompted by concerns similar
    to those in the Weber case? Part 2 - Was
    the effect of the plan on males and nonminorities
    comparable to the effect of the plan in that case?

26
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • The Rule from Weber . . .
  • In determining the legality of the Agencys plan
    under Title VII the Court used the standard set
    forth in the Weber case. This rule stated that
    the plan must be designed to eliminate manifest
    racial imbalances in traditionally segregated job
    categories.
  • The Court further determined that to meet this
    standard the employer must only point to a
    conspicuous imbalance in traditionally segregated
    job categories and not meet a prima facie case
    standard.
  • Taken together this decision was grounded in the
    understanding that voluntary action on the part
    of the employer is crucial to furthering the
    purpose of Title VII and the idea that Title VII
    should not be read to thwart such efforts.

27
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • Question 2, Part 1 . . . .
  • Was the employment decision made pursuant to a
    plan prompted by concerns similar to those in the
    Weber case?
  • Here the Court determined that the plan was
    developed to correct a manifold imbalance based
    on the fact that women did not hold a single
    position in this employment category at the time
    the decision was made to hire Joyce.
    Additionally the court considered the facts that
    the Agencys plan was temporary and flexible with
    a long term goal supported by short term goals
    aimed at eliminating rather than maintaining
    imbalances in the work force.

28
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • Question 2, Part 2 . . . .
  • Was the effect of the plan on males and
    nonminorities comparable to the effect of the
    plan in the Weber case?
  • Here,as in Weber, the Court asked whether the
    Agencys plan unnecessarily trammeled the rights
    of male employees or created an absolute bar to
    their advancement. It determined that the plan
    did NOT do so because it did NOT . . .
  • Set aside positions for women. The plan instead
    specifically stated that the goals established
    should not be construed as quotas that must be
    met. Instead the plan merely authorized
    consideration of affirmative action concerns when
    evaluating qualified applicants.

29
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • The Last Consideration of the Court . . . .
  • At the end of the decision the Court noted that
    it should be mindful of the Court and Congress
    consistent emphasis on the value of voluntary
    efforts to further the objectives of the law.
    This was brought up earlier in the decision to
    support not using the prima facie standard for
    the employer to develop an affirmative action
    plan as well. It is laid out in the final
    decision statement of the Court as well for
    emphasis.

30
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • Proposition 209
  • California passed which prohibits racial,
    ethnic, and gender preferences in public
    education, employment, and contracting. Allows
    economic status to be considered. Michigan has a
    similar law.
  • California Regents revoke affirmative action plan

31
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger
  • Facts A non-minority student sued the University
    of Michigans law school after she was rejected.
  • Rule Diversity in education is a compelling
    state interest and a schools affirmative action
    plan that does not use quotas is not
    unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, nor
    does it violate Title VI.
  • Rationale OConnor relied heavily on Powells
    opinion in Bakke. She explained that the law
    schools affirmative action plan narrowly
    tailors the use of race in admissions
    decisions to further a compelling state interest
    in obtaining the educational benefits that flow
    from a diverse student body.

32
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger
  • Dissent Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented and
    claimed that the law schools system was a thinly
    veiled quota system. He claimed that the
    admissions process was not narrowly tailored to
    the goal of complete diversity, not just racial
    diversity. Rehnquist used actual application and
    admission data from the law school to show a
    direct correlation between the amount of a
    minority that applied and the amount that was
    accepted. For example, in 1995, 9.7 of the
    applicant pool was African American and 9.4 of
    the admitted class was African American.
  •  

33
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger
  • Justice Thomas, an African American, states that
    the U.S. Constitution abhors classifications
    based on race, not only because those
    classifications can harm favored races or are
    based on illegitimate motives, but also because
    every time the government places citizens on
    racial registers and makes race relevant to the
    provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us
    all. Thomas quoted Frederick Douglass who said,
    And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs,
    let him fall. Your interference is doing him
    positive injury. What I ask for the negro is not
    benevolence . . . but simply justice. Id. at
    350.

34
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • 2003 (same day as Grutter) Gratz v. Bollinger
  • Facts Jennifer Gratz, a Caucasian, applied to
    the University of Michigan undergraduate school
    and was rejected. The University of Michigans
    undergraduate admissions department used a
    selection index. Applicants could aggregate up
    to 150 points depending on factors including,
    GPA, in-state residency, alumni relationship,
    personal essay, academic performance, etc. A
    minority applicant would receive twenty points
    automatically, whereas other diverse qualities,
    such as geographic diversity or leadership and
    service were capped at five points. If a student
    received one hundred points he would be admitted.

35
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • 2003 (same day as Grutter) Gratz v. Bollinger
  • Rule An affirmative action plan for a
    university must be narrowly tailored to the
    legitimate end of educational diversity.
  • Quotas are not narrowly tailored to the
    legitimate end of educational diversity.

36
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • 2003 (same day as Grutter) Gratz v. Bollinger
  • Rationale Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the
    opinion of the Court and relied heavily on
    Powells rationale in Bakke. Rehnquist explained
    that no single characteristic automatically
    ensured a specific and identifiable contribution
    to a universitys diversity. Rehnquist
    emphasized the importance of considering each .
    . . individual, assessing all of his qualities
    . . . and . . . evaluating that individuals
    ability to contribute to the unique setting of
    higher education. Rehnquist found that the
    University had created a situation in which
    virtually every minimally qualified . . .
    minority applicant would be accepted regardless
    of his individual characteristics.

37
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano
  • Facts The city of New Haven, Connecticut, used a
    job-related test to decide who would be
    considered for promotions among its firefighters.
    The results of the test revealed that whites
    outperformed their Hispanic and African American
    counterparts. Hence, if the city certified the
    results, it would promote a disproportionate
    amount of white firefighters. The city feared
    that the test had created a disparate impact on
    African Americans by discriminating against them
    and thusly violated Title VII. Therefore, the
    city did not certify the results.

38
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano
  • Rules
  • Disparate Treatment An employer cannot
    discriminate based on race.
  • Disparate Impact Employment actions that appear
    race neutral, but have a disparate impact are
    discriminatory.
  • An employer has a defense to a disparate impact
    claim if it can show that the practice is job
    related for the position in question and
    consistent with business necessity.
    Nonetheless, the plaintiff can prevail if he
    shows that there is an alternative practice that
    meets the employers needs and has less of a
    disparate impact.

39
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano
  • Strong Basis in Evidence Standard
  • An employer has to show that it conduct which
    creates a disparate impact is based on more than
    a fear of litigation.
  • Rationale Not certifying the test was
    discrimination because it was a decision based on
    race. The city did not offer any reasonable
    alternatives to the test. The firefighters took
    the test at an expense to themselves.

40
Affirmative Action since Johnson
  • Dissent Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the
    majoritys premise that the test violated Title
    VIIs disparate treatment provision. Ginsburg
    recognized that the Court historically has held
    that the because of race language in Title VII,
    when interpreted with the spirit of the Civil
    Rights Acts, will not necessarily be used to
    protect non-minorities from discrimination.
  •  
  • Ricci video
  • Obama speaks on affirmative action

41
Resume Activity
Johnson v. Santa Clara
42
Further Questions
  • Does the presence of the recession cause
    governments to unnecessarily trammel the rights
    of private contractors bidding for construction
    jobs?
  • Should it be unconstitutional to apply
    affirmative action plans to women applying to law
    school?
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com