This case was settled on November 21, 1998. The issues that were not resolved by the Supreme Court are described below.
In this case, which received widespread publicity because the Department of Justice changed its position during the litigation, the United States and Sharon Taxman initially sued her former employer, the Board of Education, under Title VII. They alleged that the Board's use of race as a factor in selecting which of two equally qualified employees to lay off violated federal law prohibiting an employer from discriminating against an individual with respect to her employment conditions on the basis of her race.
In 1989 because of budgetary constraints, the Board of Education was forced to lay off one teacher in the Business Department at Piscataway High School. Under New Jersey law, teachers were to be released in reverse order of their tenure with the Board deciding which of two equally tenured teachers to release. Forced to choose between two equally tenured, qualified, and able business teachers, the Board of Education retained a minority faculty member instead of Ms. Taxman, who is white. The Board admittedly made this choice solely to maintain a diversity among the faculty of the High School's Business Department.
A divided Third Circuit held that the Board's decision violated Title VII. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in United Steel Workers v. Weber, the court of appeals concluded that the Board's decision violated Title VII because it did not further the purposes of the civil rights legislation and unnecessarily trammeled the interests of a white employee. With respect to Title VII's purpose, the Third Circuit noted that the Act was designed to "end discrimination" and to "remedy the segregation and under representation of minorities that discrimination has caused" in the workplace. Consequently, the Board's decision to use race as a factor to promote diversity rather than remedy prior discrimination was inconsistent with the remedial nature of this legislation. Further, the court of appeals noted that even if the Board's goal of racial diversity was appropriate under Title VII, that goal could not be pursued at the expense of a person's job.
Questions presented:
- Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, permit employers to take race into account for purposes other than remedying past discrimination?
- If so, is fostering diversity among a high school faculty a lawful purpose?
- Assuming a lawful purpose, does consideration of race in a layoff decision invariably violate the rights of affected non-minority employees?
- May a district court award full backpay to a Title VII plaintiff who stands no more than an even chance of securing, or retaining, employment?
Lower court opinion: 91 F.3d 1547 (3d Cir.)