Personnel Administrator v. Feeney - Impact

The majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices did not underestimate nor ignore the fact that the effect of the Massachusetts Veterans Preference Statute mainly burdened the female population. Their employment opportunities were diminished while competing with a category of veterans who were primarily male. But the Court emphasized that in order for a claim of discrimination to be valid, disproportionate impact did not provide sufficient rationale. A litigant had to show discriminatory purpose. Stressing that "the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal laws, not equal results," the justices found no gender-based legislative motive in the statute, the language of which was "neutral" in that the only differentiation made distinguished between veterans and non-veterans. Although admitting that there existed past objections to granting veterans hiring preferences, the majority justices concluded that with respect to statutory preferences, whether authored at the state or federal level, "the constitutional standard required a finding (that) the legislature acted because of them, not merely in spite of them."