Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County

1. What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Supreme Court decide? Why?
The issue being considered was if the Transportation Agency violated the Civil Rights of Johnson (a male employee) by selecting Joyce (a female employee) for a promotion when gender was a contributing factor in the selection process. The review board recommended Johnson for the position but Joyce was awarded the position by the selecting official as part of a documented Affirmative Action plan. Johnson maintained that his rights were violated because Joyce’s gender was a contributing factor to the selection process, and because he was the most favored candidate the position should have been awarded to him (Walsh, 2010).

2. What does this case reveal about the conditions under which affirmative action is legal?
This case shows that affirmative action is legal when several factors are in place. Affirmative actions must be conducted with the intent of correcting an imbalance in the workforce that was created by “Old patterns.” Because the goal in hiring the top female applicant was to help correct just such an imbalance, the action is legal. Additional factors that must also be in place include, a documented affirmative action plan, the plan must not authorize blind hiring of individuals that are not qualified based on factors within the plan. The plan must not bar advancement of qualified individuals that do not fall within the identified protected group. Finally, the goal of the plan must be to obtain a balance, not obtain one, which means the plan must be temporary in nature. The hiring of Joyce and the Affirmative action plan employed by the Transportation Agency met all these requirements (Walsh, 2010).

3. What evidence did the county have of the need for affirmative action?
To support the need for affirmative action the county was able to show that they had identified a smaller representation of women in the Agency overall and in five of seven specific categories. The county could show that women constituted 22% of the Agency workforce, substantially below the area labor market. The county was also able to show that the majority of females in the Agency’s workforce were employed in positions traditionally held by women, and there were no female Skilled Craft Workers, showing a clear imbalance (Walsh, 2010).

4. Why does the Court conclude that the measures used to implement the county’s affirmative action plan do not unduly burden white males such as Johnson? Because the county’s affirmative action plan did not include releasing male employees from positions simply to be filled by female employees, unilaterally bar the advancement of male employees, include quotas, was designed on a temporary basis intended to correct an observed imbalance, and the male applicant did not have absolute right to the position the Court concluded that the plan did not unduly burden white males (Walsh, 2010).

5. Do you agree with this decision? Why or why not?
I do agree with the Court’s decision on this matter. The point of affirmative action is to correct imbalances in the workforce, and the county had observed and documented a substantial imbalance in the workforce. When observing the market for the same type of jobs outside the Agency it was concluded that this imbalance was not normal. The observance that the imbalance was not normal indicated the need for an affirmative action plan, which was created and documented. The Court concluded that the plan adhered to all the legal requirements of such plans, and I agree (Walsh, 2010).

Walsh, D. (2010). Employment law for human resource practice. (3rd ed.). Mason Ohio: South-Western Publishing.