2. 1978 Regents of the University
of California v. Bakke
• Facts: Allan Bakke applied to the University of California, Davis
School of Medicine in 1973 and 1974. He was rejected both
times; whereas, special applicants from distinct minority
groups were successful and had significantly lower academic
qualifications. The University of California, Davis School of
Medicine reserved 16 out of the 100 spots in their program
for disadvantaged minorities. Bakke argued that this was a
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment under the United States Constitution.
• Issue: Should race be a deciding factor in admission
processes?
• Decision : The Supreme Court ruled that race may be a factor
in determining admission to public educational institutions;
however, it may not be a sole determining factor (“Regents of
the University of California v. Bakke”).
3. 1987 Johnson v. Transportation
Agency of Santa Clara County
• Facts: The Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, California used
gender as a deciding factor in a promotion position where
they appointed Dian Joyce over Paul Johnson.
• Issue: Did the agency take into account the gender of each
employer in the promotion process and ultimately violate Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
• Decision: The Supreme Court ruled six votes for the
Transportation Agency and three votes against. Justice
Brennan stated that using sex as one factor among many is
not unreasonable. Ultimately, the Agency’s actions did not
create a direct obstacle to the advancement of men (Johnson
v. Transportation Agency).
4. 1989 Wards Cove Packing Co v.
Antonio
• Facts: A group of nonwhite workers filed a law suit against Wards
Cove Packing Company for exhibiting discrimination in employment
violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Issue: Does the statistical evidence of increased numbers of white
workers compared to nonwhite workers prove that discrimination
is evident in the workplace?
• Decision: The Supreme Court had five votes for Wards Cove
Packing Co. and four votes against. Ultimately, Justice Byron argued
that comparisons of race percentages in different job classes poses a
false accusation towards the employer “the proper comparison is
generally between the racial composition of the at-issue jobs and
the racial composition of the qualified population in the relevant
labor market” (Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio).
• As a result of this court ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1991 was passed
circumventing 12 Supreme Court Cases and made it easier for
employees to sue in job discrimination cases and increased
employer penalties (Mangum).
5. 1996 Piscataway v. Taxman
• Facts: This case began in 1989 when, Sharon Taxman, a teacher at
Piscataway High School was fired on the basis of her race. The
Board of Education of Piscataway decided to cut an employee in the
business education department. Both Sharon Taxman (white) and
Debra Williams (African American) were employed on the same day.
The state law of New Jersey states that the school board has to cut
the newest hires first. As a result, of the affirmative action policy
the in 1975 that promoted diversity within the school, Taxman lost
her job. Taxman took the issue to court stating that it was a
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Piscataway v. Taxman
(1996)”).
• Issue: Should the school board base their executive decisions off of
race?
• Decision: The federal district court ruled that Piscataway High
School’s affirmative action policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act; subsequently, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this
decision.
6. 2003 Gratz v. Bollinger
• Facts: In 1995 Jennifer Gratz with the average GPA of 3.8 and
an ACT score of 25 applied to the University’s of Michigan’s
College of Literature, Science and the Arts but was denied
application. The University’s policy on using race as a factor in
admissions is they admit the majority of all qualified
applicants who are either African American, Hispanic, or
Native American and considered to be underrepresented on
campus.
• Issue: Does the University of Michigan’s admissions policy
violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment?
• Decision: The Supreme Court ruled a six to three opinion by
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist that their policy did violate
the Equal Protection Clause (Gratz v. Bollinger).
7. 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger
• Facts: In 1997 Barbara Grutter a white female with a average
GPA of 3.8 and an LSAT score of 161 applied to the University
of Michigan’s Law school but was denied admittance. The Law
School admits they use race as a determining factor since
they believe it serves a “compelling interest in achieving
diversity among its student body.”
• Issue: Does this racial preference violate the Equal Protection
Clause?
• Decision: The Court ruled in a five to four opinion by Justice
Sandra Day O’Connor that the Equal Protection Clause does
not prohibit the Law School’s use of race in admissions to
obtain the benefits of a diverse community (Grutter v.
Bollinger).
8. 2007 Parents Involved in
Community Schools v. Seattle School
District No. 1
• Facts: The Seattle School District gave students the right to apply to
any high school in the District; however, certain schools were
favored in the community forcing the District to use a system of
tiebreakers to decide which students would gain admission. The
District used race as the second most important determining factor
to maintain racial diversity. The tiebreaker was put into effect if any
school’s student body deviated from 40% white students and 60%
non-white students. The District was sued by a non-profit group
called Parents Involved in Community Schools for violating the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Issue: Does a school district that normally permits a student to
attend the high school of their choice violate the Equal Protection
Clause by denying the student admission to their chosen school
because of their race in an effort to meet desired racial quotas?
• Decision: The Court ruled by a five to four vote that the racial
tiebreaker is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment (Parents Involved in Community
Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1).
9. 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano
• Facts: This court case began when a group of white
firefighters as well as Hispanic firefighters from the New
Haven Connecticut Fire Department filed a law suit claiming
that they experienced racial discrimination when the city
refused to certify the results of two exams needed for the
plaintiffs’ promotion to Lieutenant and Captain. The Civil
Service Board did not certify the exams since the results
would have promoted a disproportionate number of white
candidates in comparison to minority candidates.
• Issue: Can the results of a valid civil service exam be
expended when they unintentionally prevent the promotion
of minority candidates?
• Decision: The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that by
discarding the exams the City of New Haven violated Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Ricci v. DeStefano).
