Chapter 5
Chapter 5- Affirmative Action
Case 1-Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC
I- The union and its apprenticeship committee were found guilty of discrimination against Hispanics and blacks were ordered to remedy the violations. Found in contempt of court orders to remedy violations, court eventually imposed fine and an affirmative action plan as a remedy. Did provisions of Title VII give the courts power to order race conscious membership quotas?
R- Title VII
A- The court held that Title VII doesn’t prohibit courts from ordering the race quotas it did because it was an appropriate circumstance in trying to right past discrimination. Since Local 28 was known for only allowing whites and recommending people they knew it would be impossible for people of color to ever have a chance of being part of the program.
C- SCOTUS held that remedies to be appropriate under the circumstances.
Case 2-Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County California
I- Did the Transportation Agency taking sex into consideration when choosing to promote a female over a male violate Title VII?
R- Title VII
A- The court found that the voluntary affirmative action plan adopted by the company was okay to use. It was not unreasonable to consider sex as one factor among many in making a hiring decision. Since the decision did not create a barrier for advancement for men, the discrimination was acceptable.
C- SCOTUS upheld the promotion under the voluntary affirmative action plan, the plan was reasonable.
Case 3- Ricci v. De Stefano
I- Can civil service exam results be rejected and not be used when it causes unintentional promotion of minority candidates?
R- Title VII due to Disparate Impact
A- The court held that by discarding the exams, the City of New Haven violated Title VII. New Haven failed to prove it had a strong basis that not discarding the test would subject them to liability since the tests were job related and a business necessity.
C- SCOTUS sided with the firefighters and
Case 1-Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC
I- The union and its apprenticeship committee were found guilty of discrimination against Hispanics and blacks were ordered to remedy the violations. Found in contempt of court orders to remedy violations, court eventually imposed fine and an affirmative action plan as a remedy. Did provisions of Title VII give the courts power to order race conscious membership quotas?
R- Title VII
A- The court held that Title VII doesn’t prohibit courts from ordering the race quotas it did because it was an appropriate circumstance in trying to right past discrimination. Since Local 28 was known for only allowing whites and recommending people they knew it would be impossible for people of color to ever have a chance of being part of the program.
C- SCOTUS held that remedies to be appropriate under the circumstances.
Case 2-Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County California
I- Did the Transportation Agency taking sex into consideration when choosing to promote a female over a male violate Title VII?
R- Title VII
A- The court found that the voluntary affirmative action plan adopted by the company was okay to use. It was not unreasonable to consider sex as one factor among many in making a hiring decision. Since the decision did not create a barrier for advancement for men, the discrimination was acceptable.
C- SCOTUS upheld the promotion under the voluntary affirmative action plan, the plan was reasonable.
Case 3- Ricci v. De Stefano
I- Can civil service exam results be rejected and not be used when it causes unintentional promotion of minority candidates?
R- Title VII due to Disparate Impact
A- The court held that by discarding the exams, the City of New Haven violated Title VII. New Haven failed to prove it had a strong basis that not discarding the test would subject them to liability since the tests were job related and a business necessity.
C- SCOTUS sided with the firefighters and