Johnson V. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County

1. What is the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?

The legal issue in this case was that Paul Johnson felt that he was passed over for a position due to his sex gender. The courts decided that the company was acting in the best interest by using affirmative action.

2. What does this case reveal about the conditions under which affirmative action is legal?

This case reveal that although hiring someone base just on race or sex is wrong, if it’s done under affirmative active, then it’s completely legal.

3. What evidence did the county have of the need for affirmative action?

The need to implement affirmative active was evident because although 36.4% of the area labor were women, none of the 238 Skilled Craft positions were held by women and the company was taking steps to correct that (p.243).

4. Why does he Court conclude that the measures used to implement the county’s affirmative action plan do not unduly burden white males such as Johnson?

The Court concluded that its decision does not unduly burden white males because it was “remedial in nature and it addressed a “manifest imbalance” in the workforce (p.245). It also states that affirmative action is not a permanent solution, but temporary.

5. Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not?

Maybe I’m partially biased base on the fact that I’m African American myself but completely agree with the court’s decision to uphold the company decision to hire based on the fact that it was currently the female employees made up 36.4% of the workforce, but not one of those position occupied were skilled in nature. That’s unacceptable, and if it weren’t for this law, it probably would have stayed that way a lot longer.

Resources

Walsh, D. J. (2013). Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, Fourth Edition. Mason: South-Western