Name _James Wallace Selection Personnel Law

Assignment 3

Find an example of a court / legal case documenting discrimination in the employee selection process (hiring, promotion, termination). The case can be a classic older case, as the ones discussed in class, or a more recent case in the news. Or, if you have or know someone who has been involved in a discrimination case, you can use this as an example. Review the case and answer the following questions to the best of your ability based on the information you have obtained. 1. Briefly describe the nature of the case. In December 1978, the Santa Clara County Transit District Board of Supervisors adopted an Affirmative Action Plan for the County Transportation Agency. Relevant to this case, the Agency Plan provides 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. The Agencys Plan thus set aside no specific number of positions for minorities or women, but authorized the consideration of ethnicity or sex as a factor when evaluating qualified candidates for jobs in which members of such groups were poorly represented. One such job was the road dispatcher position that is the subject of the dispute in this case. The court found that Joyces sex was the determining factor in her selection and that the Agencys Plan was invalid under the criterion announced in Steelworkers v. Weber, that the Plan be temporary. The Court of Appeals reversed.

2.

Would you describe the discrimination as disparate impact or disparate treatment? Why? In this case, I would describe the discrimination as disparate treatment. It appears to me that the

criterion sex was actually considered to determine who to hire for the job. This leads me to believe that there was some intentional unequal treatment happening to different groups of people. 3. How did the plaintiff demonstrate that the employer had violated CRA Title VII? For example: Was the plaintiff a member of a protected class? Did the plaintiff provide data demonstrating the 80% rule of thumb was violated? Johnson filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging that he had been denied promotion on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. He received a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on

March 10, 1981, and on March 20, 1981, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 4. How did the defendant rebut the charges? For example: Did they cite a job analysis? Did they provide evidence of job-relatedness using data from a validation study? Did they provide evidence of a BFOQ? The Agency argued that the Plan did not unnecessarily trammel male employees rights or create an absolute bar to their advancement. The Plan sets aside no positions for women, and expressly states that its goals should not be construed as quotas that must be met. Denial of the promotion to petitioner unsettled no legitimate, firmly rooted expectation on his part, since the Agency Director was authorized to select any of the seven applicants deemed qualified for the job. Express assurance that the program is only temporary may be necessary if the program actually sets aside positions according to specific numbers. 5. What was the outcome? The Supreme Court upheld the Santa Clara Transportation Agency's affirmative action plan. Justice William Brennan wrote that it could be legal under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to remedy imbalances of female and male workers in a skilled job category. This affirmative action plan was legal, because it merely set goals but did not establish quotas for hiring female employees. Further, this plan recognized gender as only one of several factors in decisions about hiring and promotion. Finally, the plan was acceptable because it was only a temporary means to overcome past discrimination against workers based on sex.