Personnel Administrator MA v. Feeney
Encyclopedia
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States
. The Supreme Court's decision upheld the constitutionality of a state law giving hiring preference to veterans over non-veterans. The law was challenged as violating the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
by a woman, who argued that the law discriminated on the basis of sex because so few women held veteran status.
"Upon remand, the District Court... concluded that a veterans' hiring preference is inherently nonneutral because it favors a class from which women have traditionally been excluded..."
wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices Byron White
, Harry Blackmun
, William Rehnquist
, and John Paul Stevens
. The Court declared the law was constitutional, pointing out the law's gender-neutral language, "legitimate and worthy purposes," and legislative history. Stewart recognized the need for intermediate scrutiny in gender-based discrimination cases: "... any state law overtly or covertly designed to prefer males over females in public employment would require an exceedingly persuasive justification to withstand a constitutional challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." He also recognized that "... when a neutral law has a disparate impact upon a group that has historically been the victim of discrimination, an unconstitutional purpose may still be at work."
The Court cited Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
to apply a heightened form of review, a two-part test: "When a statute gender-neutral on its face is challenged on the ground that its effects upon women are disproportionably adverse, a twofold inquiry is thus appropriate. The first question is whether the statutory classification is indeed neutral in the sense that it is not gender-based. If the classification itself, covert or overt, is not based upon gender, the second question is whether the adverse effect reflects invidious gender-based discrimination... [which is] 'the condition that offends the Constitution.'"
The Court reversed the District Court after determining that there was no discriminatory purpose at work behind the law: "The appellee... has simply failed to demonstrate that the law in any way reflects a purpose to discriminate on the basis of sex."
dissented, joined by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.
. Marshall saw the law as unconstitutional based on its discriminatory impact: "In the instant case, the impact of the Massachusetts statute on women is undisputed. Any veteran with a passing grade on the civil service exam must be placed ahead of a nonveteran, regardless of their respective scores. The District Court found that, as a practical matter, this preference supplants test results as the determinant of upper level civil service appointments. Because less than 2% of the women in Massachusetts are veterans, the absolute preference formula has rendered desirable state civil service employment an almost exclusively male prerogative." Marshall pointed out the practical result of the preference law: "In practice, this exemption, coupled with the absolute preference for veterans, has created a gender-based civil service hierarchy, with women occupying low-grade clerical and secretarial jobs and men holding more responsible and remunerative positions."
Justice Marshall's dissent called for shifting the burden of proof from the individual to the state: "Where the foreseeable impact of a facially neutral policy is so disproportionate, the burden should rest on the State to establish that sex-based considerations played no part in the choice of the particular legislative scheme."
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
. The Supreme Court's decision upheld the constitutionality of a state law giving hiring preference to veterans over non-veterans. The law was challenged as violating the Equal Protection Clause
Equal Protection Clause
The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
by a woman, who argued that the law discriminated on the basis of sex because so few women held veteran status.
Background of the case
A federal district court had struck down the law as unconstitutional based on its discriminatory impact: "The District Court found that the absolute preference afforded by Massachusetts to veterans has a devastating impact upon the employment opportunities of women. Although it found that the goals of the preference were worthy and legitimate and that the legislation had not been enacted for the purpose of discriminating against women, the court reasoned that its exclusionary impact upon women was nonetheless so severe as to require the State to further its goals through a more limited form of preference.""Upon remand, the District Court... concluded that a veterans' hiring preference is inherently nonneutral because it favors a class from which women have traditionally been excluded..."
The court's decision
Justice Potter StewartPotter Stewart
Potter Stewart was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. During his tenure, he made, among other areas, major contributions to criminal justice reform, civil rights, access to the courts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.-Education:Stewart was born in Jackson, Michigan,...
wrote for the majority, joined by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices Byron White
Byron White
Byron Raymond "Whizzer" White won fame both as a football halfback and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Appointed to the court by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, he served until his retirement in 1993...
, Harry Blackmun
Harry Blackmun
Harold Andrew Blackmun was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 until 1994. He is best known as the author of Roe v. Wade.- Early years and professional career :...
, William Rehnquist
William Rehnquist
William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American lawyer, jurist, and political figure who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States...
, and John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from December 19, 1975 until his retirement on June 29, 2010. At the time of his retirement, he was the oldest member of the Court and the third-longest serving justice in the Court's history...
. The Court declared the law was constitutional, pointing out the law's gender-neutral language, "legitimate and worthy purposes," and legislative history. Stewart recognized the need for intermediate scrutiny in gender-based discrimination cases: "... any state law overtly or covertly designed to prefer males over females in public employment would require an exceedingly persuasive justification to withstand a constitutional challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." He also recognized that "... when a neutral law has a disparate impact upon a group that has historically been the victim of discrimination, an unconstitutional purpose may still be at work."
The Court cited Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Corp.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 429 U.S. 252 , was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a zoning ordinance that in a practical way barred families of various socio-economic, and ethno-racial backgrounds from residing in a...
to apply a heightened form of review, a two-part test: "When a statute gender-neutral on its face is challenged on the ground that its effects upon women are disproportionably adverse, a twofold inquiry is thus appropriate. The first question is whether the statutory classification is indeed neutral in the sense that it is not gender-based. If the classification itself, covert or overt, is not based upon gender, the second question is whether the adverse effect reflects invidious gender-based discrimination... [which is] 'the condition that offends the Constitution.'"
The Court reversed the District Court after determining that there was no discriminatory purpose at work behind the law: "The appellee... has simply failed to demonstrate that the law in any way reflects a purpose to discriminate on the basis of sex."
Dissent
Justice Thurgood MarshallThurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from October 1967 until October 1991...
dissented, joined by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.
William J. Brennan, Jr.
William Joseph Brennan, Jr. was an American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1956 to 1990...
. Marshall saw the law as unconstitutional based on its discriminatory impact: "In the instant case, the impact of the Massachusetts statute on women is undisputed. Any veteran with a passing grade on the civil service exam must be placed ahead of a nonveteran, regardless of their respective scores. The District Court found that, as a practical matter, this preference supplants test results as the determinant of upper level civil service appointments. Because less than 2% of the women in Massachusetts are veterans, the absolute preference formula has rendered desirable state civil service employment an almost exclusively male prerogative." Marshall pointed out the practical result of the preference law: "In practice, this exemption, coupled with the absolute preference for veterans, has created a gender-based civil service hierarchy, with women occupying low-grade clerical and secretarial jobs and men holding more responsible and remunerative positions."
Justice Marshall's dissent called for shifting the burden of proof from the individual to the state: "Where the foreseeable impact of a facially neutral policy is so disproportionate, the burden should rest on the State to establish that sex-based considerations played no part in the choice of the particular legislative scheme."
See also
- Gender equalityGender equalityGender equality is the goal of the equality of the genders, stemming from a belief in the injustice of myriad forms of gender inequality.- Concept :...
- List of gender equality lawsuits
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger Court
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 442