Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. It is the seminal case for the "strong-basis-in-evidence standard" for affirmative action programs. Background. In response to racial tension in a community and its schools, the Board of Education and the teachers union in Jackson, Michigan added a "layoff provision" to their collective bargaining agreement; it required that in the event of layoffs, "teachers with the most seniority ... shall be retained, except that at no time will there be a greater percentage  of minority personnel laid off than the current percentage of minority personnel employed at the time of the layoff." This provision was designed to preserve the effects of a hiring policy whose goal had been to increase the percentage of minority teachers in the school system. When layoffs became necessary, the board adhered to the provision, with the result that certain nonminority teachers were laid off while minority teachers with less seniority were retained. Procedural history. The displaced nonminority teachers sued in federal court, alleging violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court dismissed the  teachers' claims, holding that the racial preferences were permissible as an attempt to remedy societal discrimination by providing role models for minority schoolchildren. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on similar grounds. Decision. The United States Supreme Court reversed. Although unable to agree on an opinion, five members of the court agreed that the layoffs were in violation of the equal protection clause. It was also agreed by five members of the court that the equal protection clause does not require a public employer's voluntary affirmative action plan to be preceded by a formal  finding that the employer has committed discriminatory acts in the past. Judgment of the court. Justice Powell announced the judgment of the court. He expressed the view that Concurring in part and in the judgment. Justice O'Connor stated that the layoff provision was not narrowly tailored to achieve its asserted purpose, on the ground that it was designed to safeguard a hiring goal that was tied to the percentage of minority students in the school district, not to the percentage of qualified minority teachers within the labor pool, and that such a hiring goal itself had no relation to the  remedying of employment discrimination. Concurring in the judgment. Justice White expressed the view that none of the interests asserted by the board, singly or together, justified the racially discriminatory layoff policy where none of the retained minority teachers was shown to be a victim of any racial discrimination, and that the layoff policy had the same impermissible effect as one that would integrate a work force by discharging whites and hiring blacks until the latter comprised a suitable percentage. Dissents. Justice Marshall expressed the view Justice Stevens expressed the view that Analysis. Given the lack of a majority in "Wygant , commentators have paired Justice Powell's plurality with Justice O'Connor's concurrence to find three potential conclusions of the case: