Marie Lennon (Moschini)
CCSU ED515
(Chapter 17) Brief – 11/17/10
Citation: Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267, 106 S. Ct. 1842 (1986).
Topic: School Board provision in collective bargaining agreement allowed for teachers
with most seniority not to be laid off and tenured nonminority teachers to be laid off
before nontenured minority teachers.
Relief Sought: Provision was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and layoffs were
based on race.
Issue(s): Collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Board and the Jackson
Education Association (teacher’s union) would protect employees of minority groups
against layoffs. The provision stated “…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.”
Facts: The Board and the Union approved a new provision , Article XII of the CBA,
regarding layoffs. The provision was added in 1972 due to racial tension within the
community. When layoffs became necessary, nonminority teachers with more seniority
were laid off and nontenured minority teachers were retained. It was also argued that the
provision was a remedy for prior discrimination against minorities by the Jackson School
District in hiring practices.
Findings of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit: The Court upheld that the
provision was constitutional. The Court justified the provision stating that the Board’s
interest to provide minority students with minority role models to remedy societal
discrimination was sufficiently important to justify the racial classification in the layoff
provision.
Findings of the Supreme Court of the U.S: Reversed the judgment of the Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Reasoning: The Board’s layoff plan was not “sufficiently narrowly tailored” to its
purpose. Since the provision was in response to prior discrimination in hiring practices, it
was an incorrect remedy for layoffs. The Court ruled that “denial of a future employment
opportunity is not as intrusive as loss of an existing job.” The Court stated that other
hiring goals are available to rectify prior discrimination in hiring teachers. Therefore, the
provision was in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.