Petitioner
Picataway Township Board of Education
Respondent
Sharon Taxman
Petitioner's Claim
That the Piscataway Board of Education's decision to dismiss a white teacherin order to keep a comparably qualified African American teacher on staff wasvalid under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
David B. Rubin
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Stephen E. Klausner
Justices for the Court
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Edward R. Becker, Robert E. Cowen, Morton I. Greenberg,Carol Los Mansmann (writing for the Court), Richard Lowell Nygaard, Jane R.Roth, H. Lee Sarokin, Walter K. Stapleton
Justices Dissenting
Timothy K. Lewis, Theodore Alexander McKee, Anthony J. Scirica, Dolores K. Sloviter
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
14 May 1996
Decision
Piscataway Board of Education's action in dismissing Taxman was held to be aviolation of her civil rights.
Significance
The case of Board of Education of Picataway v. Sharon Taxman was on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court when a coalition of civil rights groups raised the money to settle the case. The civil rights leaders and the board of education agreed that defeat in the High Court--which seemed likely--would represent a major blow to the cause of affirmative action. Citing the legal dictumthat "bad cases make bad law," they preferred to fight the battle over racial preferences in hiring at another time, over a different set of circumstances.
Taxman Fights Dismissal on Racial Grounds
In 1989, the Board of Education of Piscataway, New Jersey received instructions from the school's superintendent to lay off one of the teachers in its business department. At the time, two teachers with equal seniority--having started work on the same day nine years earlier--were on the staff: Sharon Taxman, who was white, and Debra Williams, who was African American. Williams was the only minority teacher in the business department staff. The board conducted a thorough review of the job performance of each teacher and concluded thatthey were of equal ability and with equal qualifications. In previous caseswhere seniority or job performance could not be used to determine which staffmember to dismiss, the board had simply drawn lots or numbers out of a container. In this case, however, the superintendent of schools decided that affirmative action should be used to "break the tie" between the instructors. Accordingly, he instructed the board to retain Williams and dismiss Taxman. In his view, keeping the only African American teacher on the business faculty would send a message to Piscataway's racially mixed student body that the schoolboard was committed to tolerance and diversity.
Sharon Taxman did not see the issue that way. She filed a complaint with theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), contending that she had beenlaid off solely on the basis of her race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After attempts to resolve the dispute proved unsuccessful, she filed a lawsuit on those same grounds, gaining the support of the U.S. Justice Department. In her lawsuit, Taxman asked for back pay and reinstatement to her old position. In 1992, the board of education rehired Taxman. Nevertheless, she continued to pursue her suit to retrieve lost wages.
Taxman's case first came before a U.S. district court. The judge there ruledin her favor, holding the board liable for discrimination on the basis of race and awarding her $144,000 in damages. The court also ordered the board to give Taxman full seniority reflecting continuous employment from 1980. The board of education then appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit. That court affirmed the district court's decision on 14 May 1996.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The court of appeals defined the issue in simple terms: to decide "whether Title VII permits an employer with a racially balanced work force to grant a non-remedial racial preference in order to promote racial diversity." In otherwords, they asked whether the Piscataway Board of Education could employ racial hiring preferences even in a case where it was not addressing a past wrong, i.e. discrimination against African Americans in hiring. In boiling down the issue to that question, the court first had to establish that the dismissalof Taxman did not have any remedial basis. It did so in short order, declaring upon a review of the evidence that "black teachers were neither underrepresented nor underutilized in the Piscataway School District work force." In fact, statistics cited by the court showed that the percentage of African American teachers exceeded the percentage of African Americans in the available work force. Thus "the Board's sole purpose in applying its affirmative action policy in this case was to obtain an educational benefit which it believed would result from a racially diverse faculty," Judge Mansmann wrote in his majority opinion.
While lauding this goal in theory, Mansmann found that the board's policy, "devoid of goals and standards, is governed entirely by the Board's whim, leaving the Board free, if it so chooses, to grant racial preferences that do notpromote even the policy's claimed purpose. Indeed, under the terms of this policy, the board, in pursuit of a racially diverse work force, could use affirmative action to discriminate against those whom Title VII was enacted to protect. Such a policy unnecessarily trammels the interests of nonminority employees." Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court and awarded back pay to Taxman. It did not, however, grant her claimto punitive damages, because in the court's view, the board had not acted "willfully, wantonly, or outrageously" in this matter.
Dissent and Aftermath
A number of impassioned dissents occurred in the case. Citing the belief "that students derive educational benefit by having a black faculty member in anotherwise all-white department," Chief Judge Sloviter would have left it up to the discretion of the school board which teacher to dismiss. Judge Sciricaechoed these sentiments, adding: "I do not believe Title VII prevents a school district, in the exercise of its professional judgment, from preferring oneequally qualified teacher over another for a valid educational purpose"-- namely, racial diversity. Judge Lewis thought the majority's decision "eviscerates the purpose and the goals of Title VII" and set a horrific precedent forfuture cases.
The Board of Education of Piscataway did not accept the court of appeals ruling and appealed its case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case seemed destinedto become a major litmus test of the High Court's thinking on affirmative action. But as the day of decision neared, civil rights leaders and other supporters of affirmative action began to fear that the board's case was not morally clear and therefore ill-suited to be a testing ground for the legality of affirmative action in general. Accordingly, in November of 1997, a coalition of civic leaders and civil rights groups decided to raise enough money to settle the case with Sharon Taxman. The school board agreed to pay her more than$400,000, 70 percent of which came from outside sources. The decision of thecourt of appeals was allowed to stand, and the Supreme Court never heard thecase.
Impact
The case of Piscataway Township Board of Education v. Taxman requiredthe court of appeals to carefully reexamine Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Title VII was enacted to further two primary goals: to end discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, thereby guaranteeing equal opportunity in the workplace, and to remedy the segregation and underrepresentation of minorities in the work force. A coalition of civil rights groups believed that a successful challenge by Sharon Taxman in the Supreme Court could have undermined affirmative action through the invocation of Title VII by aggrieved whites in similar circumstances.
Related Cases
Picataway Township Board of Education
Respondent
Sharon Taxman
Petitioner's Claim
That the Piscataway Board of Education's decision to dismiss a white teacherin order to keep a comparably qualified African American teacher on staff wasvalid under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
David B. Rubin
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
Stephen E. Klausner
Justices for the Court
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Edward R. Becker, Robert E. Cowen, Morton I. Greenberg,Carol Los Mansmann (writing for the Court), Richard Lowell Nygaard, Jane R.Roth, H. Lee Sarokin, Walter K. Stapleton
Justices Dissenting
Timothy K. Lewis, Theodore Alexander McKee, Anthony J. Scirica, Dolores K. Sloviter
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
14 May 1996
Decision
Piscataway Board of Education's action in dismissing Taxman was held to be aviolation of her civil rights.
Significance
The case of Board of Education of Picataway v. Sharon Taxman was on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court when a coalition of civil rights groups raised the money to settle the case. The civil rights leaders and the board of education agreed that defeat in the High Court--which seemed likely--would represent a major blow to the cause of affirmative action. Citing the legal dictumthat "bad cases make bad law," they preferred to fight the battle over racial preferences in hiring at another time, over a different set of circumstances.
Taxman Fights Dismissal on Racial Grounds
In 1989, the Board of Education of Piscataway, New Jersey received instructions from the school's superintendent to lay off one of the teachers in its business department. At the time, two teachers with equal seniority--having started work on the same day nine years earlier--were on the staff: Sharon Taxman, who was white, and Debra Williams, who was African American. Williams was the only minority teacher in the business department staff. The board conducted a thorough review of the job performance of each teacher and concluded thatthey were of equal ability and with equal qualifications. In previous caseswhere seniority or job performance could not be used to determine which staffmember to dismiss, the board had simply drawn lots or numbers out of a container. In this case, however, the superintendent of schools decided that affirmative action should be used to "break the tie" between the instructors. Accordingly, he instructed the board to retain Williams and dismiss Taxman. In his view, keeping the only African American teacher on the business faculty would send a message to Piscataway's racially mixed student body that the schoolboard was committed to tolerance and diversity.
Sharon Taxman did not see the issue that way. She filed a complaint with theEqual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), contending that she had beenlaid off solely on the basis of her race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After attempts to resolve the dispute proved unsuccessful, she filed a lawsuit on those same grounds, gaining the support of the U.S. Justice Department. In her lawsuit, Taxman asked for back pay and reinstatement to her old position. In 1992, the board of education rehired Taxman. Nevertheless, she continued to pursue her suit to retrieve lost wages.
Taxman's case first came before a U.S. district court. The judge there ruledin her favor, holding the board liable for discrimination on the basis of race and awarding her $144,000 in damages. The court also ordered the board to give Taxman full seniority reflecting continuous employment from 1980. The board of education then appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit. That court affirmed the district court's decision on 14 May 1996.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The court of appeals defined the issue in simple terms: to decide "whether Title VII permits an employer with a racially balanced work force to grant a non-remedial racial preference in order to promote racial diversity." In otherwords, they asked whether the Piscataway Board of Education could employ racial hiring preferences even in a case where it was not addressing a past wrong, i.e. discrimination against African Americans in hiring. In boiling down the issue to that question, the court first had to establish that the dismissalof Taxman did not have any remedial basis. It did so in short order, declaring upon a review of the evidence that "black teachers were neither underrepresented nor underutilized in the Piscataway School District work force." In fact, statistics cited by the court showed that the percentage of African American teachers exceeded the percentage of African Americans in the available work force. Thus "the Board's sole purpose in applying its affirmative action policy in this case was to obtain an educational benefit which it believed would result from a racially diverse faculty," Judge Mansmann wrote in his majority opinion.
While lauding this goal in theory, Mansmann found that the board's policy, "devoid of goals and standards, is governed entirely by the Board's whim, leaving the Board free, if it so chooses, to grant racial preferences that do notpromote even the policy's claimed purpose. Indeed, under the terms of this policy, the board, in pursuit of a racially diverse work force, could use affirmative action to discriminate against those whom Title VII was enacted to protect. Such a policy unnecessarily trammels the interests of nonminority employees." Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court and awarded back pay to Taxman. It did not, however, grant her claimto punitive damages, because in the court's view, the board had not acted "willfully, wantonly, or outrageously" in this matter.
Dissent and Aftermath
A number of impassioned dissents occurred in the case. Citing the belief "that students derive educational benefit by having a black faculty member in anotherwise all-white department," Chief Judge Sloviter would have left it up to the discretion of the school board which teacher to dismiss. Judge Sciricaechoed these sentiments, adding: "I do not believe Title VII prevents a school district, in the exercise of its professional judgment, from preferring oneequally qualified teacher over another for a valid educational purpose"-- namely, racial diversity. Judge Lewis thought the majority's decision "eviscerates the purpose and the goals of Title VII" and set a horrific precedent forfuture cases.
The Board of Education of Piscataway did not accept the court of appeals ruling and appealed its case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case seemed destinedto become a major litmus test of the High Court's thinking on affirmative action. But as the day of decision neared, civil rights leaders and other supporters of affirmative action began to fear that the board's case was not morally clear and therefore ill-suited to be a testing ground for the legality of affirmative action in general. Accordingly, in November of 1997, a coalition of civic leaders and civil rights groups decided to raise enough money to settle the case with Sharon Taxman. The school board agreed to pay her more than$400,000, 70 percent of which came from outside sources. The decision of thecourt of appeals was allowed to stand, and the Supreme Court never heard thecase.
Impact
The case of Piscataway Township Board of Education v. Taxman requiredthe court of appeals to carefully reexamine Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Title VII was enacted to further two primary goals: to end discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, thereby guaranteeing equal opportunity in the workplace, and to remedy the segregation and underrepresentation of minorities in the work force. A coalition of civil rights groups believed that a successful challenge by Sharon Taxman in the Supreme Court could have undermined affirmative action through the invocation of Title VII by aggrieved whites in similar circumstances.
Related Cases
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975).
- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976).
- United Steelworkers v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979).
- Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, 480 U.S. 616(1987).
User Comments Add a comment…