1 psy 6430 unit 2 legal issues continued schedule tonight and monday: lecture wednesday, 1/30: exam

1

PSY 6430 Unit 2

Legal Issues ContinuedSchedule

Tonight and Monday: Lecture

Wednesday, 1/30: Exam

2

SO1: Court structure, Title VII cases Title VII cases are tried in the federal court system

Supreme Court

Eleven Courts of Appeals Corresponding to Eleven Circuits

92 District Courts

9 justices

3 judges 1 judge

(MI is in the 6th; in most cases, trials heard by judges, not juries: click; CRA1991 permits trials intentional disc when compensatoryOr punitive damages. Different laws in different parts of the country until a case reaches the Supreme Court- most liberal, 9th, CA notorious)

3

SO2: EEOC administrative process Before an individual can pursue redress in court under

Title VII (usually followed by OFCCP as well) File a complaint with the EEOC Exhaust all internal administrative remedies

At WMU an employee must contact Office of Institutional Equity

EEOC may pursue four negotiation steps Stakes increase at each step - penalties for the company

become more and more severe EEOC can proceed through all four in order, or skip some

and start with the most severe one, depending upon the strength of the individual’s complaint

(in 1990, OFCCP decided, based on statistics from WMU, to skip the first two and go directly to third step - conciliation agreement. It was lifted in 1995 -I’ll talk more about that in a few minutes)

4

SO2: First negotiation step No Fault Settlement

Complaint is filed with EEOC Before EEOC collects any data, a settlement is

attempted Within 10 days of receipt of the complaint, EEOC sends a

copy to the company and immediately gives the company an opportunity to settle it

If unsuccessful, moves to informal fact finding Informal fact finding, settlement attempted again

If successful, it results in a no fault settlement Company does not admit any wrong doing, but engages in

some sort of compromise If unsuccessful, moves to the next negotiation step

5

SO2: Second negotiation step: Pre-Determination Settlement

EEOC can and usually does subpoena the company’s records That is how EEOC gets access to the company’s records EEOC can subpoena ALL of the company’s records, not just the

records related to the specific complaint If it finds something else it doesn’t like, it can “go for it” as well

EEO data are strongly protected by organizations - national security secrets!

Company is invited to respond, if it does the response can be used by EEOC then or in the future

Most lawyers say organizations should never respond; whatever information/data they give EEOC can be used against them

EEOC, based on data, determines probable cause or no probable cause

If no probable cause, EEOC usually withdraws, but individual can pursue remedy in court - constitutional right (with little chance of success)

If probable cause and company settles, no wrong doing is admitted by the company

(NY State Court system, job analysis and needed access to those data so I could develop a representative sample, the AA officer refused to give themto me. I eventually got it, but had to go to Personnel Director and have him fight the battle with the AA office; AA office usually is separate from personnel)

6

SO2: Third negotiation step: Conciliation Agreement

Initiated by finding of probable cause and no settlement Because the EEOC has found probable cause, at this point

things get pretty serious and any settlement is likely to result in some major concessions by the company (WMU’s conciliation agreement)

EEOC, not the Court, oversees this agreement thus it is a private agreement between parties, not a legal agreement

The EEOC administers compliance; if the organization does not comply, EEOC will typically file a law suit or OK a law suit by the plaintiff

No wrong doing is admitted by the company if it settles at this step

If no settlement can be reached, things get REAL serious and move to the Consent Decree step

7

SO2: Fourth negotiation step: Consent Decree

Initiated by a law suit filed by EEOC or the plaintiff BEFORE litigation, EEOC attempts a settlement again If settled, costly for the organization

Usually involves lump sum payouts including back payments (for wages lost)

Typically not done in prior negotiation steps (including Conciliation Agt) Also may involve an AA program

Again, typically not done in prior negotiation steps Court must approve the settlement because a law suit was filed Court oversees compliance because the law suit was filed

This is NOT a private agreement between EEOC and the company If settled at this step, the company still does not admit to any

wrong doing The company has not had its day in court, and thus has not been

found to have engaged in unfair discrimination

(company has not been proven guilty in court; read some of WMU’s conciliation agreement; Abercombie and Fitch Consent Decree, Home Depot)

8

SO22: Two reasons why a company may opt to settle even if charge is weak

Company YearConsent Decree

Settlement Amount

Abercombie & Fitch 2005 $50.0 million

Texaco 1996 $176.1 million

Nextel 2000 $176.0 million

Coca Cola 2000 $192.5 million

(I am going to jump ahead here - because of the relevancy of SO24; here are some figures - why on earth would companies settle for these amounts?)

9

SO22: Two reasons why a company may opt to settle even if charge is weak

Costs and uncertainties of the outcome of litigation (could be worse than the settlement)

Public relations Who wants to buy clothes from a store that has

unfairly discriminated against blacks, Hispanics, Asians and females?

Who wants to buy gas from Texaco where “the black jelly beans are stuck to the bottom of the bag?”

In fact, there was a very large, well organized boycott of Texaco before the case was resolved

(A&F - equal opportunity discriminator - all but white males)

10

NFE: Difficult issues David Glenn, VP of Institutional Equity

Hired in 1988, retired December 2012 In 1989, WMU faced normal periodic investigations

from both EEOC and Dept. of Education (WMU probably knew they were coming, Mr. Glenn did not)

Conciliation agreement arose from those investigations

Never once since David has been here has the University lost a court case (not as appreciated as he should be - nonevents are not recognized)

(How I met David; student came to me describing a situation that clearly suggested harassment, hostile environment, seeking my advice. Next time, I handled it differently - but at what point and what do you say to a student?)

11

SO3: Some statistics from EEOC

In 2011, over 99,000 charges of discrimination filed with the EEOC Race 35% Sex 30% Disability 26% Age 24% National origin 12% Religion 4%

(up 25% in the past 10 years)

12

SO4: EEO vs. AA

Equal Employment Opportunity

Every individual is treated the same and every individual who is equally qualified has an equal opportunity for employment, promotions, etc. No preferential treatment Professional selection issue (this is exactly what

selection systems are designed to do - hire the best applicants)

Not controversial except for racists, sexists, etc.

13

SO4: EEO vs. AA Affirmative Action

Redresses historical imbalances and increases number of minorities hired in the work place at a faster rate than what would occur simply through EEO

Can result in preference being given to individuals in certain demographic groups

If two candidates are equally qualified, preference will be given to the minority candidate

A less qualified minority may be hired instead of a more qualified majority

Social policy, not a “professional” selection issue Extremely controversial

(pros and cons, I have been on both sides. Denied a job with a very excellent, major company after I had interned there for 2 years in favor of a minorityfemale who had not worked for the company. Boss stupidly told me I was a 1 pointer, she was a 2 pointer. PA - hired into a position that could onlyBe given to a female or minority. Didn’t tell me, when I found out - I was angry, hurt. Did not want to be hired because. Started in a hole with colleaguesLater vindicated - white male I was in competition with - he turned out not to be very good.

14

NFE: Affirmative Action: Different and more controversial than EEO

Advocates of AA EEO often does not exist Historical imbalances exist from past discrimination Diversity is important and benefits society/culture

Opponents of AA Violation of basic principles of justice (fairness) Brands minorities as inferior Undermines meritocracy and hurts productivity Often helps wrong groups: e.g., individuals in middle

class protected classes vs. whites from poor socio-economic backgrounds

(debate in the course pack – at end controversy AA and admission to universities/colleges)

15

SO7: Why are the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures important?

1. These guidelines were “hammered” out and approved by all of the federal agencies involved in EEO and AA compliance (1978)

EEOC, Civil Service Commission, Dept. of Justice, and Dept. of Labor

Prior to this, both EEOC and Dept. of Labor (OFCCP) had issued separate guidelines that conflicted.

Selection specialists could not conform to both with respect to some procedures.

Imagine the confusion.

(Sos on text: learn full name; I was actually in this situation at PA - we were a semi-private, semi-public organization, subject to both EEOC andOFCCP guidelines, yet we couldn’t satisfy both. And, remember what the stakes are for violating the law….)

16

SO7: Why are the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures important?

2. While not legally binding, the courts give “great deference” to the guidelines. The courts have ruled that these guidelines will be used as a “checklist” for the appropriateness of selection procedures.

(when we get to the professional development/requirements for selection procedures, particularly the job analysis, they are based on theseUniform Guidelines).

SO8: Selection instruments covered

The EEO laws cover any selection procedure/instruments used, not just selection tests: Application blanks Academic degree requirements Job interviews Performance appraisals used for promotion

decisions

17(next few Sos, just some details from the guidelines that are particularly important)

18

SO9: Restrictions on use of skills and abilities in selection

1. If they can be learned during a relatively brief training period - within 6 months – cannot test for them

Makes perfect sense from a selection standpoint

Has implications for job analysis so we will be coming back to this, but your job analysis must identify not only which KSAs are required for effective job performance, but also which can be learned on the job (so they can be excluded from your selection procedures)

19

SO9: Restrictions on the use of skills and abilities in selection

2. KSAs from higher level jobs are only acceptable if The majority of job incumbents actually assume higher

level positions If they so do within a reasonable period of time - Uniform

Guidelines, within five years If you are hiring assembly line workers, 40 incumbents, but

only 2 supervisory positions, and only a few ever become supervisors - NO!

If it takes an assembly line worker more than 5 years to become a supervisor - NO! If supervisory position requires a BA, but the assembly line

worker position does not - you cannot require your assembly line workers to have BAs

(Many companies want to test for higher level skills, particularly if there is a strong hire from within policy. However…political hot potato in orgs)

20

SO10: Three types of cut-off score procedures

Least restrictive: Minimum cut-off score Minimum score above which you consider all

applicants equally qualified Pass/fail system

Type of validity procedure: Empirical or content Next restrictive: Banding

Establish ranges of scores and group applicants in those ranges: Every applicant is equally qualified within each band

Type of validity procedure: Empirical only

(type of cut-off score, major implications for the type of validity procedure you use and hence the type of job analysis; cover this now and again later)

21

SO10: Three types of cut-off score procedures, cont.

Most restrictive: Rank order applicants based on scores Select top person first, then the next one, etc. Type of validity procedure: Empirical only

(managers have trouble with this one, by the way – even if the systems allows input/interview with respect to who is going to be working for them)

22

SO10: Three types of cut-off score procedures, cont.

Must use empirical validity to determine job relatedness of the selection procedure if

Banding Rank ordering (and of course, if there is adverse impact)*

Why? Two requirements: Uniform Guidelines stateIf you use these approaches not only do you have to (a) show that your selection procedures are job related, but also (b) that those who score higher on the exam/procedure will also perform better on the jobThere is only ONE way to do that - statistics, empirical validation

(often ignored by organizations)

*Remember, the laws are only relevant if adverse impact exists

23

SO12: Three situations in which a company would adopt an AA program

Organization is a government contractor and thus is required to do so under the laws administered by the OFCCP

Organization has entered into an agreement with EEOC or OFCCP to do so, or has been ordered by the courts to do so (Consent decree or lawsuit)

Organization adopts a voluntary AA program Language in the CRA of 1991 makes the legality of

voluntary AA programs questionable* Lawyers recommend that organizations NOT do this

*I’ll talk about this more next two study objectives

24

SO14: Voluntary AA programs

14A: Explain why the courts have historically excluded white males from filing a (reverse) discrimination lawsuit under Title VII

14B: What are white males permitted to challenge in court re voluntary AA programs?

25

SO14: Voluntary AA programs - the controversy

Conflict between wording of Title VII and preference that can be given members of protected classes:It is unlawful to fail or refuse to hire any individual with respect to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.Further, “nothing in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer to grant preferential treatment to any individual.”

So, what about white males? Color - white Sex - male

(what about white males who are not hired because a member of a protected class is given preference?It happens)

26

SO14: Reverse Discrimination Several reverse discrimination cases have been

brought under Title VII “Reverse discrimination:” Members of a majority group claim

they have unfairly discriminated against All of the cases that I am familiar with to date have

involved groups of white males In an employment situation, under Title VII (as

opposed to admission to universities/colleges), white males have never been successful in winning a direct challenge under Title VII

(they have at times, won disparate treatment cases, and “admission” law suits, but those are different laws: next slide)

27

SO14: Reverse Discrimination SO14A: Why have the courts historically excluded white males

from filing a (reverse) discrimination lawsuit under Title VII?The Supreme Court has ruled that the intention of the framers of Title VII was to protect individuals who have been subjected to unfair discrimination in the past.Because white males do not fall into that category, the Supreme Court ruled that they were not entitled to file a lawsuit under Title VII.

SO14B: What can white males challenge in court?White males can challenge the legality of voluntary AA programs.(CRA of 1991 makes it virtually impossible for white males to challenge court-ordered AA programs, negating an earlier decision of the Supreme Court)

(Back to SO14A&B’ last point, imagine the company – the court ordered and approved an AA program – white males challenged it, andthe Supreme Court said it was OK for the males to challenge the legality of the AA program – that was corrected in the CRA 1991.

28

Birmingham Dept. of Safety orIt’s difficult to do the right thing

1972 Courts ruled selection tests were not job related and

unfairly discriminated against blacks In the 37-year history of the department, a black

trooper had never been hired even though 25% of the workforce in the area was black

The department revised its selection procedures

Talked about this case before – in the introductory ppt

29


1977 Black troopers challenged the promotional exams to

captain Of the 230 officers at or above the rank of corporal,

not one was black EEOC entered the case on the side of the troopers

pressuring the department to change its selection procedures

After several years, the department had failed to do so

30


Justice Department then entered the case on the side of the black troopers

The department agreed to revise testing procedures New tests were developed but found to be inadequate Justice Department asks courts to impose a hiring

quota, which the courts did (50% hiring quota)* Justice Department then switches sides after Reagan is

President Justice Department helps the white troopers appeal the

quota system to the Supreme Court on the grounds of “reverse discrimination”

*hiring quotas are now illegal; goals are not, but quotas are

31


Supreme Court rules that the white employees can challenge the court-ordered AA program because they were not “parties” to the original contract

Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether the AA program is legal or illegal

(cont. on next slide)

32


Eleventh Circuit Court struck down the AA program, ruling that it was illegal as formulated Court ruled that the organization was NOT given more

protection “just because the program had been approved by the courts as part of a consent decree.”

Court refused to treat the consent decree ordered by the court any differently than a “voluntary” AA program.

Civil Rights Act of 1991 Makes it virtually impossible for white males to

challenge the legality of a court-ordered AA program

(all’s well that ends well – this started in 1977)

33

SO15: Legality of voluntary AA, and the CRA of 1991

CRA of 1991

It is unlawful to use a protected status characteristic as a motivating factor* in selection.You cannot have an AA program without using protected status as a motivating factor, hence the CRA 1991 calls into question the legality of voluntary AA programs.

No court cases have addressed this issue, that I know of, so we just don’t know what the courts would decide.

Nonetheless, legal experts have strongly advised organizations not to adopt a voluntary AA and to abandon their current ones until this is resolved.

(language of the CRA that poses the problem for AA programs; remember Gatewood, Field & Barrick: we know what is not legal; but not what is legal)

* “Motivating factor” is an extremely important term here

34

NFE: History of that language

CRA language was written to protect members of protected classes

It was in response to the Supreme Court decision involving a mixed motive case

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989

35

NFE: Price Waterhouse Disparate treatment (not adverse impact) case Hopkins, a female, was denied promotion to

partner The company considered both legal and illegal

factors when it denied promotion Illegal: make-up, hair style, and dress Legal: poor interpersonal skills

Thus, both legal and illegal factors were motivating factors in the decision: hence, the term, mixed motive case

36

NFE: Price Waterhouse Supreme Court ruled in favor of Price Waterhouse

Why? Price Waterhouse maintained it would have made the same decision if they had not used gender-related factors as motivating factors

To negate that decision, the CRA language states that “it is unlawful to use a demographic characteristic as a motivating factor in selection.”

That language also calls into question the legality of voluntary AA programs

(can’t use it at all; good luck on that one! They meant well; one more slide on this)

37

NFE: Mixed motive cases, an aside Even under CRA of 1991, the legal remedies for a

mixed motive case are severely restricted even if a plaintiff wins

Restricts monetary reimbursement (which does include payment of attorney fees and costs) to costs/expenses directly related to the pursuit of the mixed motive case

The court cannot award damages (monetary compensation) or back pay

The court cannot order the company to admit that it did anything wrong (that it unfairly discriminated against the plaintiff)

The court cannot reinstate an employee or force an employer to hire or promote the employee

Basically an “empty” victory for the plaintiff and not a very lucrative type of case for a law firm to take on

38

SO16: Characteristics that an AA program must have to be legal

Text states that there are three characteristics that voluntary AA programs must have to be considered legal

However, all apply to any AA program, not just voluntary ones

Also, in the SO, I changed the three characteristics for the exam – not quite the same as in the text

39


They must be initiated/designed to correct a manifest imbalance – in other words minorities must be underrepresented and you must be able to prove thatIn addition, the goals, if there are any, must be connected in some way to the degree of imbalance.

They must not “trammel the interests of the white employees” or as I have said in the SO:They cannot completely bar advancement or hire of the majority group; quota systems are not legal (goals are OK but quotas are not) This is one reason the Supreme Court struck down UM’s

undergraduate AA program that added an arbitrary 20 points to the scores of underrepresented minorities

(love the language - trammel!!; 50-50 hiring quota, a white can be completely denied the opportunity for advancement)

40


They must be temporary and have no permanent adverse impact on whitesThis is because they are designed to eliminate an historical balance, not maintain a balance

41

SO16: NFE: Thought QuestionIs the fact that AA programs must be temporary inconsistent with the fact that the OFCCP laws requiregovernment contractors to have an AA plan?

That is, how can a program be both required and temporary?

If there is no adverse impact (no manifest imbalance),then there is no AA program, because an AA program must only be used to correct manifest imbalances.Essentially, if there is not a historical imbalance, then an AA program is not required

SO20: Ricci v. DeStefano

New Haven Civil Service Board administered a promotional exam for lieutenant and captain fire fighter jobs

After the exams had been administered and scored, the Civil Service Board Discarded the exams because their use would have

resulted in adverse impact for black applicants and Blacks threatened to file a law suit

42

(sos ask you to learn a few details about/rulings from a coupe of court cases. Griggs vs. Duke Power,First major case – 1971 – far reaching effects. )


Captain exam (7 vacancies)

Whites Blacks Hispanics

Applicants 25 8 8

Passing score 16 3 3

Top 9 scores 7 0 2

Lieutenant exam (8 vacancies)

Whites Blacks Hispanics

Applicants 43 19 15

Passing score 25 6 3

Top 10 scores 10 0 0

43

Here are the actual numbers:No blacks were eligible for promotion to captain or lieutenant.


Whites and Hispanics subsequently filed a law suit

Claimed the decision to discard the exam violated Title VII because it was based on race and color

44

SO21: Ricci v. Destefano

2006: District Court upheld the right of CSB to refuse to certify the results of the test on the grounds it would result in adverse impact

2008: Three judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld the District Court ruling, stating that the CSB was “in an unfortunate position of having no good alternatives.”

2009: Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the white and Hispanic plaintiffs, not the CSB

45

SO2O: Ricci v. Destefano Main reason (and one for the exam)

If there is adverse impact, the threat of a law suit is not sufficient reason to discard the exam

Court also stated

If the test was job-related, then adverse impact would be OK (fair discrimination), and it appeared the tests were job related

46

SO2O: Ricci v. Destefano What happened next

New Haven reinstated the examination results and promoted 14 of the 20 firefighters within months of the decision.

The city settled the lawsuit by paying $2 million to the firefighters who brought the lawsuit; enhancing their pension benefits by millions of dollars; and paying their attorney, $3 million in fees and costs.

47

Wal-Mart: some details about the issues

Managerial jobs were not posted; men were often invited to apply, females were not

Some female managers made $20,000-$25,000 less than male counterparts

Females in every job category have been paid less than men since 1997, even though they have higher average performance appraisals and less turnover

“God made Adam first, so women would always be second to men”

48

(Sos 24-33, NFE, description of studies; articles in course pack. Hard to understandthe cases without details. Wal-mart cont. on next slide)

Wal-Mart continued

One female manager was told she was paid less than a less qualified male because she “didn’t have the right equipment.”

Females were repeatedly told “men need to be paid more because they have families to support” and “men are here to make a career while women are not.”

Others were called “worthless broads” and asked to wear lower cut shirts.

And on and on….49

Texaco – settled in 1996, race $176.1 million settlement Class action suit EEO was investigating the complaints At an executive level meeting which was

secretly taped by one of the individuals, one executive referred to blacks as “black jelly beans that all seem to be glued to the bottom of the bag.”

At the same meeting, executives conspired to alter, withhold, or destroy corporate documents requested by EEOC and plaintiffs

50

Novartis Pharmaceuticals – US, 2010 $250 million punitive damages $3.37 million in compensatory damages Could reach $1 billion dollars 70% of managers are male, while 66% of sales

representatives are female Women in sales positions received an average of over

$100.00 less per month than males in same jobs from 2002-2007

Management expected female representatives to be amenable to sexual advances from the doctors they call on and have criticized them when they have complained about inappropriate advances

51

Novartis Pharmaceuticals – US, 2010 A male district manager repeatedly showed female

direct reports pornography and invited them to sit on his lap.

He referred to women as “b……s and c…s” and said wives “were only good for washing, ironing, and f… .g.”

Company responded “He wasn’t that bad a manager. He was just terrible with women.”

Novartis kept him on staff managing women for 2 years after HR had substantiated these claims and explained that it just took a long time to get rid of him because the company was owned internationally.

52

Novartis Pharmaceuticals – US, 2010 Manager told a woman he preferred not to hire young

women because:

“First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes flex time and a baby carriage.”

Recruiters consistently asked women if they were married or had children but not men

One woman who had children was repeatedly passed over for promotion by men who had inferior sales numbers

One manager encouraged a woman to have an abortion

53

(Novartis is going to appeal. Working Woman magazine has ranked Novartis as one of the top 100 companiesto work for in the nation for 10 years in a row….OK, moving on)

54

Back to EEO & AA: MI

EEO vs. AA: Difficult issue Do you believe that you have been unfairly

discriminated against? Do you believe others have been unfairly

discriminated against? Do you believe EEO exists? Have you been disadvantaged by AA? How strongly do you value diversity in the

work place?

55


Affirmative Action New York Herald article, circa 1900

The poor and illiterate class that is a national menace and cannot be disregarded with safety

Immigrants from Asia Immigrants from Southern Europe Immigrants from Ireland

“The rights of a lot of your foreparents were not recognized until the government stepped in and affirmatively lifted them up”

(Kenneth Brown, UM, 2004)

56


Affirmative Action Threats to college-diversity programs pose risks for boys

What about AA for boys being admitted to college? Admissions preferences are being used to maintain a

balance now when more girls attend college than boys, and have better qualifications

What about other types of preferences? What about athletes? What about legacy? (preferences for children of alumni) Justice Dept. sued Illinois State University for giving

preference to minority and women in a janitorial training program, but did not address the fact that veterans were given the same preference

(more uptight about AA based on race than other factors)

57

NFE: Proposition 2, Michigan

Proposition 2, passed as a constitutional amendment, in November, 2006

Bans public institutions from using AA programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin for employment, education and contracting purposes

(controversy occurring now in the state of MI; the fact that it is a constitutional amendmentis important and I’ll talk about that in a few minutes)

58

NFE: Proposition 2, Michigan: Some history

In Michigan, in 1995, the admissions policies of both the undergraduate and law school at UM were challenged because of AA policies

2003: Supreme CourtThe law school admission policy was found to be legal, the undergraduate admission policy was found to be illegal

Undergraduate policy awarded 20 points on to the “admission score” for any underrepresented minority

Supreme Court ruled this was an arbitrary approach that did not allow individual consideration

Law school took race into consideration Supreme Court ruled this was OK

59

NFE: Proposition 2, Michigan: Some history

Proposition 2 was sponsored by the same individuals that sponsored a similar proposition in CA, and the individuals who challenged UM admission policies but was broader

To repeat:

Bans public institutions from using AA programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin for employment, education and contracting purposes

60

NFE: Proposition 2 vs. OFCCP

How does Proposition 2 affect WMU? Seem to have contradictory laws with OFCCP requiring AA and Proposition 2 banning it Federal laws supersede state laws, thus in situations

where the OFCCP laws require affirmative action for hiring, they will take precedence (i.e., hiring of staff and professors at WMU)

Federal laws do not address admissions or scholarships (or hiring contractors) based on diversity, so Proposition 2 takes precedence

(Thurgood Marshall; Chevaz King Scholarships; funding source makes a big difference)

61

NFE: Stay tuned…. 2012, Nov. (6th Circuit Court of Appeals): 8-7 vote ruled that

the amendment was unconstitutional because:“it deprived members of racial minority groups in MI of their 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law by embedding the issue of affirmative action into the state’s Constitution, where it was prohibitively difficult for a minority group to challenge.”

2012, same day: The MI state attorney general, Bill Schuette, announced he would appeal to the Supreme Court

California, Washington, & Nebraska have similar constitutional amendments but they are not affected by the 6th Circuit ruling

62

NFE: Stay tuned…. This issue has to do with the constitutionality of AA being

barred as an amendment to MI’s Constitution As such, it does not address the legality of AA in university

admissions (or employment and awarding of contracts in public institutions)

The Supreme Court has, however, agreed to hear a case that does address that:Abigail Fisher, a white student, claims she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of her race.

Case has aspects that may limit its generality but Has the potential to eliminate diversity as a sufficient rationale to justify

the use of race in admissions – a ruling that came from a similar Supreme Court case, decided in 2003

Ruling expected in June of this year

(proves how controversial this is and an issue that is not going to go away any time soon…)

63

Unit 2: The End

Questions?

Comments?

1 psy 6430 unit 2 legal issues continued schedule tonight and monday: lecture wednesday, 1/30: exam

Documents