Legal Document

452 U.S. 105 101 Supreme Court Reporter 2211 68 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 706 Wayne MINNICK et al., Petitioners,v.CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS al. Number 79-1213. Argued Dec. 2, 1980. Decided June 1, 1981. Syllabus Petitioners, two white male correctional officers employed by the California Department of Corrections and an organization representing some other employees, filed suit in state court against respondents, various officers, alleging that Department's affirmative-action plan unlawfully discriminated males individual petitioners had been denied promotions because race. On basis Court's decision Bakke versus University Regents, 18 Cal.3d 34, 132 Cal.Rptr. 680, 553 Pacific Reporter, 2nd 1152, trial enjoined respondents from giving any preference on race or sex hiring promoting employee, but allowed use as a factor making job assignments. respondents' appeal, Appeal reversed, holding court's rationale was no longer tenable view this intervening Regents Bakke, 438 265, 98 2733, 57 750. However, did not unequivocally direct judgment be entered for left certain questions open "examination if case is to retried." Held : This writ certiorari, granted review merits Appeal's decision, dismissed. Because significant developments law ambiguities record concerning both extent which has used justification such use, constitutional issues should addressed until proceedings are finally concluded appellate courts have completed their record. Pp. 120-127. Certiorari Reported below: 95 Cal.App.3d 506, 157 260. Ronald Yank, San Francisco, Cal., petitioners. Stuart R. Pollak, respondents. Justice STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 Petitioners contend adopted 1974 unconstitutional under Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. The agreed petitioners' favor. 260, light opinion, however, also identified problems "require examination Thus although we certiorari 448 910, 100 3055, 65 1139, first must confront question whether dismissed determine legal status challenged plan. 2 * "Affirmative Action Program," revised 1975, lengthy somewhat ambiguous document. Much relates commitment eradication discrimination sex. plan's section, describes program general terms, states: 3 "It policy provide equal employment opportunities all persons merit fitness prohibit based race, sex, color, religion, national origin, ancestry every aspect personnel practices employment, career development, advancement treatment employees."1 4 section then identifies specific means implementing nondiscriminatory policy.2 second plan, establishes guidelines implementation within existing organizational structure defines roles contains number provisions suggesting intended remove barriers opportunities.3 Finally, third objectives refers departmental efforts eliminate practices.4 5 does, contain indication go beyond discriminatory practices. states deputy directors, assistant division chiefs were responsible developing "correct identifiable . deficiencies through specific, measurable, attainable promotional goals with target dates each area underutilization."5 "guidelines" issued Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) indicating "that Agency's percentage minority at least 70% its service (inmate population)."6 Moreover, notes "the total labor force California, 38.1% female; Corrections' reflect only 17.3%."7 containing indicates "[i]ncrease employ minorities women achieve percentages per LEAA five (5) years," work 36% 38% women.8 does identify what means, addition eradicating practices, would these percentages. Thus, may interpreted predicting result including female employees 1979; alternatively, it read mandating affirmative action date.9 II 6 In December 1975 three commenced litigation Superior Minnick Darden, petitioners, officers. petitioner, Correction Officers Association (CCOA), employee represents Department. complaint alleged they white. 7 named defendants, here, promotion claimed central hire promote most qualified persons.10 Alternatively, contended State's interest efficient safe operation corrections system justifies attempt obtain proportion amounting minority's proportional representation inmate population, large found force.11 During pretrial discovery, indicated impact past resulted disproportionate males, stated "for purposes litigation" allege engaged intentional workers.12 8 After over 30 witnesses testified, argued length submitted judge November 23, 1976. At time recently held 1152 (1976), Amendment Constitution prohibited university consideration applicant's admissions decisions. 9 January 5, 1977, "notice decision" tersely summarized parties' respective positions: 10 "The testimony documentary evidence herein show, defendants admit, carried campaign to, do now, select applicants racial background ancestry. 11 "Defendants seek justify actions while applicant one factors considered, otherwise duties performed. Sex sole considered. Plaintiffs hand assert person whole part void. 12 agrees plaintiffs." App. Pet. D-1--D-2. 13 notice directed injunction issue enjoining "from considering candidate his origin." Id., D-2. counsel prepare appropriate order submit proposed findings fact conclusions law. 14 Before further entered, motion reopen receive detailed practices.13 Presumably proffered support defense theory justified remedy discrimination. was, quite plainly irrelevant judge's course, wholly consistent supra. summarily reopen. 15 October 11, law, declaratory judgment, permanent injunction. F-1, G-1. find either Nor CCOA standing bring action. Two enter (No. relating 19 assignments) especially relevant procedural before us. Finding provides, part: 16 Jeri Judge Enomoto continuing discriminate reason ethnic 17 "In so doing, preferences favor groups, detriment other, solely qualifications individuals involved, merits." F-4. provides: unique sensitive nature functions peculiar difficulties inherent administration California's prison require exercise broad discretion assignments determining responsibilities employees. conditions circumstances prisons throughout Corrections, necessary consider, among factors, composition serve compelling safety inmates, encouraging rehabilitation, minimizing tensions, furthering orderly management." F-6--F-7. 20 injunction, distinguished decisions, hand, determination responsibilities, other. latter provides conclusion could lawfully consider responsibilities.14 That finding explains proviso allowing assignments.15 8, preference, advantage, benefit employee.16 III 21 Respondents appealed Appeal. While appeal pending, Although affirmed ordered admit medical school, opinions supporting Members rejected relied. Specifically, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN POWELL process circumstances.17 To those demonstrated interpretation erroneous, faithful application insufficient 22 With guidance reversed case. Relying largely POWELL's "plus" decisions promoted interest.18 seemed indicate supported constituted interest.19 23 respect challenge procedures, insofar related females itrelated employees.20 References possibility retrial portions opinion,21 imply will opportunity proof hiring. 24 apparently believed inconsistent 19.22 clearly applies transfers, seems determined adequately plus well transfers. court, merely permissible analysis remand.23 If final definitive federal actually intended, difficult understand why 25 Recognizing might Corrections,24 received. contentions violation statutory proved, noting jurisdictional retried."25 IV 26 Solicitor General behalf amicus curiae, urge us dismiss final.26 See Gospel Army Los Angeles, 331 543, 67 1428, 91 L.Ed. 1662. sense can possibly take place judicial system. argue, there finality our cases ultimate practical preordained. argument made oral already prepared offer.27 Nevertheless, persuaded outcome characterized "certain" effect presented petition.28 Cox Broadcasting Corporation Cohn, 420 469, 1029, 43 328, four categories treated even though additional anticipated. falls categories—that another conclusive preordained."29 category is, delimited preliminary comment opinion: 27 considered below, mooted affected yet little substance, certain, unrelated question." 478, S.Ct., 1037. 28 answer "have substance" "wholly question" specifics particular "policy strict necessity disposing issues," Rescue Municipal Court, 549, 568, 1409, 1419, 1666, implicated.30 case, notwithstanding jurisdiction entertain id., 565-568, 1417-1419, provided "compelling reasons exercising" mandatory jurisdiction. 1419. Those "highly abstract form" presented, 575-580, 1423-1425, "ambiguous" character construction Angeles Code, 581-584, 1425-1427, belief ultimately tender underlying clean-cut concrete form." 584, 1427. 29 courts—and therefore out judgments described Cox—is similarly record, prima facie program. designed give proportions available jobs Department."31 recited "motivated part" occurred. absolutely promotion, need make more finding. Several assumptions One assume goal achieving quotas Included assumption possibilities fairly random motivating connection types expressly permitted transfers motivated employee.32 sum, promotion. 31 accept decisions.33 Like just positions. relied implies thought limited positions.34 But position made. 32 correct, adequate narrow kind identification positions involved than now contained different disposition followed using promotions, system, understanding how sweeping implemented applied context context.35 explanation bifurcated policy.36 33 An uncertainty precise decided expressed doubt claims asserted noted Darden entitled damages injunctive relief individuals. Cal.App.3d, 526, Cal.Rptr., 272. denial certify class predicated stipulation grant without certification, conferred stipulation, possible remand. They, present right—even intent—to adduce complaint, amend pleadings occurred since original filed.37 taken, unquestionably free recast response developments. 34 Accordingly, perhaps facts well38—and conclude address 35 36 So ordered. 37 REHNQUIST, concurring. 38 & N Immigration Nationality Decisions viewed "final" Code KF62 § 1257, join dissenting STEWART. Since it, dismissing want 39 concurring judgment. 40 sought tendered," improvidently granted. Mitchell Oregon Frozen Foods Co., 361 231, 80 365, 267 (1960); see Doe Delaware, 450 382, 386, n. 10, 1495, 1497, 312 (1981) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); Cowgill 396 371, 371-372, 90 613, 614, 590 (1970) (Harlan, concurring). 41 STEWART, dissenting. 42 certiorari. would, contrary, reverse wrongly State person's decisions.1 far goes, private engage he wants, cf. Steelworkers Weber, 443 193, 99 2721, 61 480, sovereign never so.2 And gives "minus" value occurs fire promote, called "affirmative action" less euphemistic term.3 44 A year ago my respect, repeat said then: 45 protection standard clear meaning—it prohibits invidious government. met 46 47 "Under Constitution, government act color skin country origin immutable bear relation ability, disadvantage, moral culpability, characteristics constitutionally short, definition 48 rule cannot when injured members minority. 49 50 ". Most importantly, criterion, Government implicitly teaches public apportionment rewards penalties legitimately according race—rather ability—and people can, should, themselves others terms characteristics. 51 "There who think new views someday prevail. have, practice racism. ." Fullilove Klutznick, 448, 523, 525-526, 532, 2758, 2798, 2803, 902 (dissenting opinion) (footnote omitted). 52 respectfully dissent. 3. "Specific required [the] plan" include, inter alia, increasing "programs recruiting, selecting, hiring, women," monitoring minorities, establishing measuring success complying nondiscrimination laws, training staff "develop sensitivity recognize positively deal practices," assure full participation levels. 3-4. example, creation positions, supervisor human relations section: Supervisor, Human Relations Section, supervision Assistant Director, Personnel Management, Training Division, shall authority responsibility following duties: "7. Provide assistance Departmental Officer local relative "8. Review department's programs procedures activities recommendations changes attainment opportunity. "9. Develop Womens Affairs receipt investigation allegations complaints individuals, organizations, parties grounds 8-10. Each division, institution, parole region appoint Affirmative Representative, whose include acting liaison between "management staff, units, special groups [and] community leaders," analyzing problem areas assist resolution, assisting development written recruitment 11. reach communities schools enrollments, 20-21, continuous requirements insure qualification standards "are upon minimum perform duties," on-the-job meet jobs, 25, communication managers, supervisors, 27. 6. 28. continues: "On basis, Black represent 22.5% force, whereas comprise 8.8%. Similarly, Spanish surname 12.1%, 7.4%. Native American .7%, up .2%. Only Asian extraction represented accord guidelines." 28-29. 31. 16-17. statistics referred "Black," "Asian," "Spanish surname," "native American," "other extraction," breakdowns facilities operated Corrections. 28-65. For "to increase significantly utilization across units CDC levels vacancies occur." "specific listed accomplish objective elimination committing department "[d]evelop plans focus communities, inform them desire women." "increase women" 16. No indicated. clarify discussing guidelines, "To agencies goals, Justice. They specify agency (inmate) population." guidelines' purpose states, part, experience "has criminal justice component Safe Streets Act's reduce crime delinquency States." 71. Federal Regulations 42.301 (1980). Tr. 194, 203-206, 383, 452-453, 487-488, 548, 563-564, 591, 666, 668, 672, 773, 792, 882. George C. Jackson, Deputy Director Department, testified program's fair work." 665. Attorney defending trial: "Our levels, your honor. "First all, we're contending hires people, that's policy. There exceptions down they're process, burden showing demonstrate real doing this. we've trying witnesses, problem. "I being factor. that, show solve, violence prisons, prisons. "And next step solve ratios hire." 660-661. Clerk's Transcript 121-122. 670-671. Conclusion reads follows: contrary F-8. proviso: "(a) Provided, nothing Order prevent person, considering, G-2. enjoins "[f]rom given Ibid. joined Part Postnominals Vice-Chancellor High POWELL'S stated: petitioner ever applicant, below failed substantial served properly devised involving competitive origin. reason, much reversed." U.S., 320, 2763. 325, 2766 (opinion BLACKMUN, JJ.). permit school diversity students "(1) '. deemed file, insulate comparison candidates seats'; (2) credited 'plus' 'fairly competitively' evaluated seats 'totally excluded percentage' restricted group. [438 at] 316-319, 2733." 520, 268. transfer assignment policies, rely threshold proposition system: no. 19, effectively apply prison-related realities point 'compelling interest' system." 520-521, terminal supports declaration, paragraph violated 'discriminating' bases 'hiring employees.' declaration rests 8) 'discriminated' respects applying 'preferences sex.' (See fn. ante.) According evidence, result' 'hiring' fails respect." 521, 269. "If retried, Powell's U. S. pertinent question. supra, Pages 307-310, 2757-2758, 750.) "These cited pursuing assigning competition transfer. still 'weighed competitively.' " concluding challenge, [finding 8] examined 'strict scrutiny' commands. We noncontrolling groups' department, proper management same reasons, women. accordingly 521-522, discussion assignments, established transfer." relate "within groups" "insofar existed. Even indicated, equivocal: Caucasian instances where members. "Various supervisory specified segments after 1974. thus conflict widely preferential policies AAP pursued department. applied, 'preference' assessment Some inference occasionally contributed preferred ahead nonpreferred position. hold "Vacancies open, sometimes delayed, fill them. labelled 'female only,' words referring (including 'male only') background. reserved group." 514-515, 264. societal 13, F-5. maintain action, proved relief, stipulated standing, created stipulation. invoked 1257(3), "Final decrees rendered highest had, reviewed "(3) By validity treaty statute drawn ground repugnant treaties laws States, title, right, privilege immunity specially set statutes of, commission exercised under, Oral Arg. 20-21. petition are: "1. Whether may, absent previous discrimination, voluntarily establish aside preferences, women, "2. constitutes sufficient sex-based so, sufficiently "3. adopt conclusory "4. institution institute population rather market flow. "5. state-wide opposed flow geographic institutions located." 2-3. proceedings—even entire trials—yet occur circumstances, concluded, final. Mills Alabama, 384 214, 86 1434, 484 (1966), demurrer sustained court. remanding jury trial. took reasoning appellant claim prevail nonfederal ground. 'would inexcusable delay benefits Congress providing completely unnecessary waste energy systems troubled delays due congested dockets.' 217-218, 1436-1437 omitted)." 479, 1038. Commenting close avoiding premature adjudication limitations jurisdiction, wrote: "Indeed effects, technical function, corollary offshoot controversy rule. often line very thin. work, technically distinct areas, adjudication, closely considerations. policy's foundations, sustain limitation, lie goes character, scheme, governmental constitutionality. delicacy particularly consequences stemming roots; comparative consequences; repositories power scope authority; necessity, function constitutionally, keep power, courts; arising negative resources enforcement; withal paramount importance "All considerations others, transcending united form Its execution choice obvious advantages produces functioning coordinate parts disadvantages, assurance rights, deferring entails. altogether speculative policy, accelerated greater harm security attaining tolerance harmony authorities scheme. relatively likely too rendering rights uncertain insecure." 570-572, 1420-1421 "set aside" females. "controlling preferences," quota introduced trial, entirely foreclosed finding, nor showed point. supra; 37, infra; Brief 5-9. "preferences" 20, It similar ones context, issue. able retrial. infra. found, interest, assumed racially permissible. Of really distinguish unified text draws distinction Under reversal vacating returning "as rendered." Erlin National Fire insurance Cal.2d 547, 756, 757 (1936); Salaman Bolt, 74 907, 914, 141 841, 844 (1977). losing party introduce evidence. 547-548, 1430-1431, 1662, quoting Erlin, P.2d, 757. regarding trials intend Stromer Browning, 268 Cal.App.2d 513, 518-519, 155, 158 (1968), decides dispositive turn change retrial, 519, 160, contemplated here. lodged copy 1979. Further reflected 1979 revision affect relief. ruling 482-483, 1039-1040, 328. self-evident folly suppose taken into account, controlling. antidote people. But, wrongs right. simply wrongs.

Classification Label: 1