Opinion ID: 676060
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Croson's Compelling Government Interest Requirement

Text: 93 Strict scrutiny's compelling government interest requirement was designed to 'smoke out' illegitimate uses of race by assuring that the legislative body is pursuing a goal important enough to warrant use of a highly suspect tool. Croson, 488 U.S. at 493, 109 S.Ct. at 721 (plurality opinion of O'Connor, J.). In practice, the interest that is alleged in support of racial preferences is almost always the same--remedying past or present discrimination. United States v. City of San Francisco, 696 F.Supp. 1287, 1301 (N.D.Cal.1988), aff'd in part and modified in part on other grounds sub nom. Davis v. City of San Francisco, 890 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 897, 111 S.Ct. 248, 112 L.Ed.2d 206 (1990). That interest is widely accepted as compelling. See, e.g., Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267, 286, 106 S.Ct. 1842, 1853, 90 L.Ed.2d 260 (1986) (O'Connor, J., concurring); Cone Corp. v. Hillsborough County, 908 F.2d 908, 916 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 983, 111 S.Ct. 516, 112 L.Ed.2d 528 (1990); Howard v. McLucas, 871 F.2d 1000, 1006-08 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1002, 110 S.Ct. 560, 107 L.Ed.2d 555 (1989). As a result, the true test of an affirmative action program is usually not the nature of the government's interest, but rather the adequacy of the evidence of discrimination offered to show that interest. City of San Francisco, 696 F.Supp. at 1301. Without an adequate showing of discrimination, the government's assertion that affirmative action is necessary lacks credibility. See Croson, 488 U.S. at 505, 109 S.Ct. at 728. 94 Therefore, when a consent decree providing race-conscious relief is challenged as unconstitutional, the district court must make a factual determination that the public employer has  'a strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that'  racial discrimination necessitates affirmative action. Howard, 871 F.2d at 1007 (quoting Wygant, 476 U.S. at 277, 106 S.Ct. at 1849). Certain aspects of this inquiry are well established. A local-government employer cannot rest on an amorphous claim of societal discrimination, Croson, 488 U.S. at 499, 109 S.Ct. at 724, on simple legislative assurances of good intention, id. at 500, 109 S.Ct. at 725, or on congressional findings of discrimination in the national economy, id. at 504, 109 S.Ct. at 727. Public employers may, however, justify affirmative action by demonstrating gross statistical disparities between the proportion of minorities hired by the public employer and the proportion of minorities willing and able to do the work. Id. at 501, 109 S.Ct. at 725 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Cone Corp., 908 F.2d at 916 (finding a prima facie case of discrimination sufficient to justify race-conscious relief where minorities owned 12% of the contracting businesses but received only 1.2% of the local government's contracting dollars); Howard, 871 F.2d at 1007 (upholding a finding of discrimination based on statistical evidence, including the fact that black employees spent an average of three times longer than white employees in low-grade wage jobs). Anecdotal evidence may also be used to document discrimination, especially if buttressed by relevant statistical evidence. Cone Corp., 908 F.2d at 916. 95 Although Croson requires that a public employer show strong evidence of discrimination when defending an affirmative action plan, the Supreme Court has never required that, before implementing affirmative action, the employer must have already proved that it has discriminated. On the contrary, formal findings of discrimination need neither precede nor accompany the adoption of affirmative action. Wygant, 476 U.S. at 286, 106 S.Ct. at 1853 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (rejecting any formal findings requirement); id. at 305, 106 S.Ct. at 1863 (Marshall, J., dissenting, joined by Brennan and Blackmun, JJ.) (stating that [t]he Court is correct to recognize, as it does at least implicitly today, that formal findings of past discrimination are not a necessary predicate to the adoption of affirmative-action policies); id. at 313, 106 S.Ct. at 1867 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (arguing that a showing of past discrimination is not necessary to finding a compelling interest in racial classifications with purely prospective effect); Howard, 871 F.2d at 1007 (specifically rejecting the intervenor white employees' argument that a showing of past discrimination must precede the implementation of the promotional relief and that this showing may be made only through the employer's own admittance of such discrimination or through a judicial finding of past discrimination); cf. Contractors Ass'n v. City of Philadelphia, 6 F.3d 990, 1004 (3d Cir.1993) (noting that federal courts have admitted evidence that supports affirmative action, even when that evidence was developed after the affirmative action plan); Harrison & Burrowes Bridge Constructors, Inc. v. Cuomo, 981 F.2d 50, 60 (2d Cir.1992) (The law is plain that the constitutional sufficiency of a state's proffered reasons necessitating an affirmative action plan should be assessed on whatever evidence is presented, whether prior to or subsequent to the program's enactment.). This is because, as Justice O'Connor has explained 96 A violation of federal statutory or constitutional requirements does not arise with the making of a finding; it arises when the wrong is committed. Contemporaneous findings serve solely as a means by which it can be made absolutely certain that the governmental actor truly is attempting to remedy its own unlawful conduct when it adopts an affirmative action plan .... Such findings, when voluntarily made by a public employer, obviously are desirable in that they provide evidentiary safeguards .... If contemporaneous findings were required of public employers in every case as a precondition to the constitutional validity of their affirmative action efforts, however, the relative value of these evidentiary advantages would diminish, for they could be secured only by the sacrifice of other vitally important values. 97 The imposition of a requirement that public employers make findings that they have engaged in illegal discrimination before they engage in affirmative action programs would severely undermine public employers' incentive to meet voluntarily their civil rights obligations.... 98 ... [P]ublic employers are trapped between the competing hazards of liability to minorities if affirmative action is not taken to remedy apparent employment discrimination and liability to nonminorities if affirmative action is taken. Where these employers, who are presumably fully aware both of their duty under federal law to respect the rights of all their employees and of their potential liability for failing to do so, act on the basis of information which gives them a sufficient basis for concluding that remedial action is necessary, a contemporaneous findings requirement should not be necessary. 99 Wygant, 476 U.S. at 289-91, 106 S.Ct. at 1855-56 (O'Connor, J., concurring). For these and related reasons, the Supreme Court has required a public employer defending an affirmative action plan to show only that it has a 'strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that remedial action was necessary.'  Croson, 488 U.S. at 500, 109 S.Ct. at 725 (quoting Wygant, 476 U.S. at 277, 106 S.Ct. at 1849 (plurality opinion)). 100 At the time the City and the Board accepted the present consent decrees, they already had a strong basis in evidence for concluding that race-based relief was needed to correct discrimination in the police and fire departments. When it approved the consent decrees, the district court noted that the City and the Board had good reason to believe that they had discriminated in those two departments. United States v. Jefferson County, 28 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1834, 1838, 1981 WL 27018 (N.D.Ala.1981), aff'd, 720 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir.1983). The district court evaluated an extensive record that supported this conclusion. Most importantly, the district court stated: 101 This court at the first trial found--and the Fifth Circuit agreed--that blacks applying for jobs as police officers and firefighters were discriminated against by the tests used by the Personnel Board to screen and rank applicants. The evidence presented at the second trial established, at the .01 level of statistical significance, that blacks were adversely affected by the exam used by the Personnel Board to screen and rank applicants for the position of police sergeant. Since governmental employers such as the City of Birmingham have been limited by state law to selecting candidates from among those certified by the Board, one would hardly be surprised to find that the process as a whole has had an adverse effect upon blacks seeking employment as Birmingham police officers, police sergeants, or firefighters--regardless of whether or not there was any actual bias on the part of selecting officials of the City. A natural consequence of discrimination against blacks at entry-level positions in the police and fire departments would be to limit their opportunities for promotion to higher levels in the departments. 102 Id. at 1837-38. The district court concluded that: 103 While the only judicial finding of discrimination thus far entered has been with respect to the effect upon black applicants of the Personnel Board's tests for police officer and firefighter, it can hardly be doubted that there is more than ample reason for the Personnel Board and the City of Birmingham to be concerned that they would be in time held liable for discrimination against blacks at higher level positions in the police and fire departments and for discrimination against women at all levels in those departments. The proposed consent decrees, by way of settlement for such potential liability, provide appropriate corrective measures reasonably commensurate with the nature and extent of the indicated discrimination. 104 Id. at 1838 (emphasis added). As the district court's analysis demonstrates, the City and the Board had strong reason to believe that employment discrimination in the police and fire departments justified race-based relief. The Board's discrimination against blacks seeking entry-level police and firefighter jobs made it almost inevitable that the effects of discrimination had worked their way up to taint City and Board promotional positions, too. This fact gave the City and the Board an adequate basis for implementing affirmative action in those two departments, which are at the core of this litigation. Further findings with respect to those departments are unnecessary. 105 However, the parties apparently have not yet fully litigated, nor has the district court decided, whether there is sufficient evidence of past or present discrimination to justify continued use of race-conscious remedies in the other departments covered by these decrees. 8 In their briefs, some of the parties attempt to demonstrate either the existence of, or lack of, discrimination in city and county employment. The district court declined to consider these issues as part of the modification proceeding. Instead, the court ruled that a showing of discrimination was relevant only to the original validity of the decrees, and that the decrees' original validity could not be challenged in this modification proceeding. The district court apparently considered a showing of discrimination irrelevant to the present proceeding. 106 That ruling was an abuse of the district court's discretion. As we have already discussed, Rufo requires that these decrees comply with Croson, and Croson requires that the City and the Board show a basis for concluding that public employment discrimination against blacks necessitates affirmative action. Croson, 488 U.S. at 500, 109 S.Ct. at 725. A showing of discrimination is relevant to the decree's present validity, which is very much at issue here. We must therefore remand the case to the district court for findings on whether the public employers here have a strong basis in evidence for their conclusion that past or present discrimination in departments other than the police and fire departments warrants race-based relief. 9 107 The City and Board may defend their programs by showing enough evidence of discrimination to create a strong basis for the conclusion that past or present discrimination warrants race-based remedies in departments in addition to the police and fire departments. It is not necessary (but would of course be sufficient) for the City and Board to show that, when they approved the decrees, they already had strong evidence of such discrimination. This case concerns only the prospective validity of the decrees, and prospective validity can be established just as well with new evidence as with old. If the City and Board can now show strong evidence of the need for affirmative action in a department, then future affirmative action in that department is justified. Cf. Contractors Ass'n v. City of Philadelphia, 6 F.3d 990, 1004 (3d Cir.1993) (holding that consideration of evidence developed after adoption of an affirmative action plan is especially appropriate where the relief sought is prospective only); Concrete Works, Inc. v. City of Denver, 823 F.Supp. 821, 837 (D.Colo.1993) ([I]t would make little sense to strike down the [affirmative action plan] solely because the evidence of discrimination before the City Council was insufficient without the post-enactment evidence only to watch the City Council reconvene immediately, incorporate the new evidence into a new ordinance, and arrive at a constitutionally adequate factual predicate.). 108 On remand, the district court should give the City and the Board a chance to make the requisite showing. Without intending to foreclose the issue, we note that in the parallel but narrower reverse-discrimination proceeding, the district court upheld race-based relief in the engineering department, although it never discussed the evidence on which it based its decision as to that department. Bennett v. Arrington, 806 F.Supp. 926, 929 (N.D.Ala.1992). 10 As recently as 1985, when discussing an engineering department promotion, the district court made the following observation about continuing racial prejudice: 109 [T]he chief engineer in his deposition testimony indicated candidly that he considered the race of Mr. Thomas, [the] person ultimately chosen, being black, as a negative feature. And that he would have so considered that as a negative feature, but for the fact that the consent decree required him to look otherwise at the candidate. 110 These indications suggest that the compelling interest prong will likely be satisfied as to at least some of the departments besides the police and fire departments. If, however, the City and Board fail to present strong evidence justifying race-based relief in a department, the district court must forthwith terminate the race-based affirmative action provisions as to that department. 111 Because we have held that Croson's first requirement is satisfied with respect to the police and fire departments, and may on remand be satisfied with respect to the other departments, we proceed to discuss Croson's second requirement. The next section assumes, without deciding, that race-based affirmative action in the other departments is allowable because there has been an adequate showing of evidence of racial discrimination by the City and the Board. 112