Hayden v. County of Nassau

Last updated
Hayden v. County of Nassau
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Full case nameWilliam Hayden, et al v. County of Nassau, et al
ArguedMarch 12, 1999
DecidedJune 9, 1999
Citation(s) 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting James Lowell Oakes, John M. Walker Jr., Damon J. Keith (6th Cir.)
Case opinions
MajorityKeith, joined by Oakes, Walker
Laws applied

In Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999), [1] the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a suit brought by White and Latino police officers alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Contents

Background

To comply with a consent decree, Nassau County redesigned its entrance examinations for police officers to eliminate or reduce the adverse impact the test had on minority candidates. The officers contended that the department's entrance exam, which had been intentionally designed to minimize adverse impact on black candidates, discriminated against them.

Opinion of the court

The Second Circuit rejected the Equal Protection claims, because the test was facially neutral, administered and scored in the same way for all candidates, was not designed with an intent to discriminate, and had not resulted in an adverse impact upon the plaintiff class of white, Latino and female applicants. The court emphasized the distinction between the County's legitimate intent to minimize the discriminatory impact of the test on black applicants, and an intent to discriminate against non-black applicants. The court explained that the objective of "designing an entrance exam which would diminish the adverse impact on black applicants . . . in and of itself [] does not constitute a 'racial' classification"; "although Nassau County was necessarily conscious of race in redesigning its entrance exam, it treated all persons equally in the administration of the exam".

The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they were discriminated against because they would have received higher scores if certain sections had not been removed from the test, pointing out that even without these sections the plaintiffs still scored higher, on average, than the black applicants who were presumed to have benefited from the revised exam. The Second Circuit stated that "where an exam that discriminates against a group or groups of persons is reviewed, studied and changed in order to eliminate, or at the very least, alleviate such discrimination, there is a complete absence of intentional discrimination." "[E]ven in the absence of specific and identified discrimination, nothing in our jurisprudence precludes the use of race-neutral means to improve racial and gender representation. . . . . [T]he intent to remedy the disparate impact of the prior exams is not equivalent to an intent to discriminate against non-minority applicants.'" [2]

The Second Circuit rejected the Title VII claims for the same reasons as the equal protection challenges. "The legislative history of the statute . . . confirms that it intended to prohibit 'race norming' and other methods of using different cut-offs for different races or altering scores based on race. In the case before us, the 1994 exam was scored in the same manner for all applicants; no differential cutoffs were employed. Thus, appellants fail to adequately allege a claim under § [703(l)]." [3]

Related Research Articles

Reverse discrimination is a term for discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Groups may be defined in terms of ethnicity, gender identity, nationality, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

1996 California Proposition 209 Ballot proposition that banned affirmative action in California

Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. It is generally considered the first case of its type.

Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially discriminatory effect but were not adopted to advance a racially discriminatory purpose are valid under the U.S. Constitution.

Disparate impact in United States labor law refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws protect based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex as protected traits, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932, was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In Hopwood, four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from University of Texas at Austin's School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. After seven years as a precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Hopwood decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.

Williams v. Mississippi, 170 U.S. 213 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case that reviewed provisions of the 1890 Mississippi constitution and its statutes that set requirements for voter registration, including poll tax, literacy tests, the grandfather clause, and the requirement that only registered voters could serve on juries. The plaintiff, Henry Williams, claimed that Mississippi’s voting laws were upheld with the intent to disenfranchise African Americans, thus violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court did not find discrimination in the state's laws because, even though the laws made discrimination possible, the laws themselves did not discriminate against African Americans. The court found that any discrimination toward African Americans was performed by the administrative officers enforcing the law and that there was no judicial remedy for this kind of discrimination.

Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000), was a US Supreme Court case that determined that the US Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution did not extend to the abrogation of state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment over complaints of discrimination that is rationally based on age.

The Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights is a consortium of American law firms in Chicago that provides legal services in civil rights cases

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 429 U.S. 252 (1977), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a neighborhood. The Court held that the ordinance was constitutional because there was no proof that "discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor in the Village's decision."

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case on United States labor law, concerning proof of disparate treatment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

<i>Bushey v. New York State Civil Service Commission</i> American legal case

Bushey v. New York State Civil Serv. Comm'n, 733 F.2d 220, 224 is a US labor law case from the Second Circuit applying the test for affirmative action from United Steelworkers v. Weber.

Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.

<i>Tompkins v. Alabama State University</i>

Tompkins v. Alabama State University, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1160, was a legal case involving affirmative action, that was decided in a United States Federal Court.

Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a unanimous Court found that "the legacy of official discrimination ... acted in concert with the multimember districting scheme to impair the ability of "cohesive groups of black voters to participate equally in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice." The ruling resulted in the invalidation of districts in the North Carolina General Assembly and led to more single-member districts in state legislatures.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College is a lawsuit concerning discrimination against Asian Americans and the affirmative action program in Harvard University's student admissions process. The organization Students for Fair Admissions and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Harvard College in 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, claiming that the college discriminates against Asian American applicants in its undergraduate admissions process.

Babb v. Wilkie, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices considered the scope of protections for federal employees in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, the Court ruled that plaintiffs only need to prove that age was a motivating factor in the decision in order to sue. However, establishing but for causation is still necessary in determining the appropriate remedy. If a plaintiff can establish that the age was the determining factor in the employment outcome, they may be entitled to compensatory damages or other relief relating to the end result of the employment decision.

References

  1. ↑ Hayden v. County of Nassau, 180F.3d42 (2d Cir.1999).
  2. ↑ Id. at 51.
  3. ↑ Id. at 53, citations omitted).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.