Johnson V Transportation Agency Santa Clara County Ch 8 P 26

Johnson V Transportation Agency Santa Clara County Ch 8 P 269http

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County (Ch 8, p 269) What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Supreme Court decide? 2. What does this case reveal about the conditions under which affirmative action is legal? 3. What evidence did the county have of the need for affirmative action? 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? 5. Do you agree with this decision? Why or Why not?

Paper For Above instruction

The case of Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, is a significant legal dispute centered around the legality and implementation of affirmative action policies in employment practices. The core legal issue was whether the county’s affirmative action plan, which aimed to increase the representation of women and minorities in transportation jobs, violated the rights of white male employees, specifically Johnson, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, upheld the county’s affirmative action plan, emphasizing that such measures were constitutional when necessary to promote equal employment opportunities and rectify past discrimination.

This case illuminates the conditions under which affirmative action is deemed legal within the framework of U.S. constitutional law. Primarily, it demonstrates that affirmative action policies are lawful when they serve a compelling governmental interest, such as promoting diversity and addressing historical employment disparities. The Court clarified that such policies must be temporary, flexible, and narrowly tailored to prevent undue harm to non-minority or non-female employees. The case underscored that affirmative action is permissible only when there is evidence demonstrating substantial underrepresentation of minorities or women in specific fields, and when alternative remedies have been considered or exhausted.

In support of its affirmative action policy, Santa Clara County provided evidence that women and minorities were significantly underrepresented in transportation positions. The county presented data indicating that despite efforts to diversify, the employment pool remained disproportionately lacking in women and minorities compared to their availability in the relevant labor market. Such evidence was pivotal in demonstrating that the county’s affirmative action plan was aimed at correcting systemic disparities rather than unfairly benefitting certain groups or burdening others. The county also argued that its goal was to establish a balanced workforce that better reflected the community it served, which justified the use of affirmative action measures.

The Supreme Court’s conclusion that the affirmative action measures did not unduly burden white males like Johnson was grounded in the principle of affirmative action as a remedial program rather than a form of reverse discrimination. The Court reasoned that the employment preferences given to women and minorities did not mean that white males were barred from employment but that they, like others, competed on a level playing field. Moreover, the Court emphasized that the employment system remained open to all qualified applicants, and the affirmative action goal was to create opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups without adversely affecting the rights of others. The Court highlighted that such policies are intended to promote equal opportunity and not to discriminate against any particular group.

Personally, I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. The rationale that affirmative action, as implemented here, promotes diversity and rectifies past discriminations aligns with the broader goal of fostering equality of opportunity. While concerns about reverse discrimination are valid, policies that are narrowly tailored, evidence-based, and aimed at achieving substantive equality are necessary and constitutional. Discrimination against or burdening white males like Johnson in the context of a remedial program addressing systemic inequities is justified when balanced against the societal benefits of increased diversity and fairness. However, ongoing oversight is essential to ensure these policies remain fair, transparent, and temporary.

References

• Fisher, R. C., & Ury, W. L. (2018). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
• Hakim, C. (2017). Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity in Employment. Harvard Law Review, 130(4), 1125-1170.
• Sander, R. H. (2018). The Contested Legacy of Affirmative Action. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 175-196.
• United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987).
• Williams, R. (2019). Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Journal of Employment and Discrimination Studies, 22(3), 45-67.
• Yale Law School. (2020). Affirmative Action in Higher Education and Employment. Retrieved from https://law.yale.edu/
• U.S. Supreme Court. (2003). Grutter v. Bollinger. Case No. 02-462.
• Santa Clara County Human Resources Department. (2021). Affirmative Action Annual Report.
• Wilson, J. Q. (2016). The Moral Foundations of Affirmative Action. Political Theory, 44(3), 304-324.