Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitmotiondiscriminationcivil rights
appealmotioncivil rightsrespondent

Related Cases

Mitchum v. Hudgens, 533 So.2d 194, 57 USLW 2374
View Case »
Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740
View Case »
Haraguchi v. Superior Court, 43 Cal.4th 706, 182 P.3d 579, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5649, 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6779
View Case »
Lathrop v. Donohue, 367 U.S. 820, 81 S.Ct. 1826, 6 L.Ed.2d 1191
View Case »
Matter of Layton, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 1993 WL 77191, 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 366
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, Cal., 480 U.S. 616, 107 S.Ct. 1442, 94 L.Ed.2d 615, 43 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 411, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,831, 55 USLW 4379

Facts

In 1978, the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency adopted an Affirmative Action Plan to address the underrepresentation of women and minorities in its workforce. When a promotional position for a road dispatcher became available, the agency considered the sex of the applicants as one factor in the decision-making process. Paul Johnson, a male employee, was passed over for promotion in favor of Diane Joyce, a female employee, despite both being rated as well qualified. Johnson filed a lawsuit after the agency's decision, claiming it was based on sex discrimination.

In 1978, an Affirmative-Action Plan (Plan) for hiring and promoting minorities and women was voluntarily adopted by respondent Santa Clara County Transportation Agency (Agency). The Plan provides, inter alia, that in making promotions to positions within a traditionally segregated job classification in which women have been significantly underrepresented, the Agency is authorized to consider as one factor the sex of a qualified applicant.

Issue

Did the Santa Clara County Transportation Agency violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by considering the sex of applicants in making a promotion decision?

The question for decision is whether in making the promotion the Agency impermissibly took into account the sex of the applicants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

Rule

The court applied the principles established in Steelworkers v. Weber, which allow for voluntary affirmative action plans to address underrepresentation, provided they do not create an absolute bar to the advancement of non-minorities.

The Plan provides, inter alia, that in making promotions to positions within a traditionally segregated job classification in which women have been significantly underrepresented, the Agency is authorized to consider as one factor the sex of a qualified applicant.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the agency's affirmative action plan was a lawful means of addressing the underrepresentation of women in traditionally male-dominated job categories. The court noted that the plan did not set aside specific positions for women but allowed for sex to be considered as one factor among many in promotion decisions. The agency's approach was deemed moderate and flexible, aimed at gradual improvement without infringing on the rights of male employees.

The Agency's Plan represents a moderate, flexible, case-by-case approach to effecting a gradual improvement in the representation of minorities and women in the Agency's work force, and is fully consistent with Title VII.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, concluding that the agency's consideration of Joyce's sex in the promotion decision was lawful under Title VII, as it was part of a legitimate affirmative action plan.

Held: The Agency appropriately took into account Joyce's sex as one factor in determining that she should be promoted.

Who won?

Transportation Agency of Santa Clara County prevailed because the Supreme Court upheld its affirmative action plan, finding it consistent with Title VII and not discriminatory against male employees.

The Court of Appeals added that the fact that the Plan established no fixed percentage of positions for minorities or women made it less essential that the Plan contain a relatively explicit deadline.

You must be