Date Created:
Place Created: Washington DC
Year Created: 1987
Historical Theme:
Description:
United States v. Paradise (1987) was a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of racial discrimination in employment practices, specifically in relation to affirmative action policies. The case involved the Alabama Department of Public Safety, which had a history of discriminatory hiring practices that excluded Black applicants from the state police force.
In the early 1970s, a federal district court ruled that the Alabama state police department was engaging in racial discrimination, and it ordered the state to take corrective measures. One of the remedies proposed was the establishment of a promotion quota system to ensure that a certain percentage of promotions in the department went to Black officers, aiming to remedy the past racial disparities.
The case came to the Supreme Court after the state of Alabama challenged the court's decision to implement a racial quota system. The state argued that the use of racial quotas was too rigid and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States, affirming the use of the racial quotas in this specific case. The Court held that the use of a race-conscious remedy, including quotas, was permissible in the context of addressing past discriminatory practices and achieving a more racially balanced workforce. Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion, stating that the remedial action was necessary to break the pattern of discrimination that had been prevalent in the state police force.
The Court's decision emphasized that the quotas were a temporary measure designed to overcome a history of exclusion and were not intended to be a permanent solution. The Court also noted that the remedy had a reasonable connection to the goal of eliminating racial discrimination and achieving an integrated police force.
This decision underscored the Court's willingness to allow race-based remedies when necessary to correct systemic discrimination, even if such remedies involved race-conscious policies like quotas.
Categories of Documents:
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987)
United States v. Paradise
No. 85-999
Argued November 12, 1986
Decided February 25, 1987
480 U.S. 149
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Court and approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was narrowly drawn to achieve the goal of remedying the proven and continuing discrimination. In view of the plurality's thorough opinion, I will mention only certain aspects of the plan before us.The District Court imposed the one-for-one promotion requirement only on one occasion, when it ordered the promotion of eight blacks and eight whites to the rank of corporal in February, 1984. Because the Department urgently needed at least 15 additional corporals, see Paradise v. Prescott, 580 F. Supp. 171, 173 (MD Ala. 1983), there appears to have been no alternative remedy that would have met the then-existing need. Given the findings of persistent discrimination, the Department's longstanding resistance to necessary remedies, and the exigent circumstances presented to the District Court, the imposition of a one-for-one requirement for the particular promotions at issue did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.The District Court's order contains significant elements of flexibility and fairness. First, it applies only if qualified black candidates are available for promotion. Second, the court suspended the order when the Department proposed procedures that appeared likely to have no adverse impact on minority applicants. It thus appears that the court's order is based upon "realistic expectations," and that the one-for-one requirement is likely to be, as the court intended, a "one-time occurrence." Paradise v. Prescott, supra, at 75-76. The court's actions indicate that the order will be enforced in a constitutional manner if it is reimposed. As in Sheet Metal Workers,"[a]n examination of what has occurred in this litigation over the years makes plain that the District Court has not enforced the goal in [a] rigid manner."
In 1972, upon finding that, for almost four decades, the Alabama Department of Public Safety (Department) had systematically excluded blacks from employment as state troopers in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the District Court issued an order imposing a hiring quota and requiring the Department to refrain from engaging in discrimination in its employment practices, including promotions. By 1979, no blacks had attained the upper ranks of the Department. The court therefore approved a partial consent decree in which the Department agreed to develop within one year a procedure for promotion to corporal that would have no adverse impact on blacks and would comply with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (Guidelines), and thereafter to develop similar procedures for the other upper ranks (1979 Decree). As of 1981, however, more than a year after the 1979 Decree's deadline, no black troopers had been promoted. The court approved a second consent decree in which the parties agreed that the Department's proposed corporal promotion test would be administered to applicants, that the results would be reviewed to determine any adverse impact on blacks under the Guidelines, that the determination of a procedure would be submitted to the court if the parties were unable to agree thereon, and that no promotions would occur until the parties agreed or the court ruled upon the promotion method to be used (1981 Decree). Of the 60 blacks to whom the test was administered, only 5 (8.3%) were listed in the top half of the promotional register, and the highest ranked black was number 80. The Department then declared that it had an immediate need for between 8 and 10 new corporals, and stated its intention to elevate between 16 and 20 individuals before constructing a new list. The United States objected to any use of the list in making promotions. In 1983, the District Court held that the test had an adverse impact on blacks, and ordered the Department to submit a plan to promote at least 15 qualified candidates to corporal in a manner that would not have an adverse racial impact. The Department proposed to promote 4 blacks among the 15 new corporals, but the court rejected that proposal and ordered that "for a period of time," at least 50% of those promoted to corporal must be black, if qualified black candidates were available, and imposed a 50% promotional requirement in the other upper ranks, but only
if there were qualified black candidates, if a particular rank were less than 25% black, and if the Department had not developed and implemented a promotion plan without adverse impact for the relevant rank. The Department was also ordered to submit a realistic schedule for the development of promotional procedures for all ranks above the entry level. Subsequently, the Department promoted eight blacks and eight whites under the court's order, and submitted its proposed corporal and sergeant promotional procedures, at which times the court suspended the 50% requirement for those ranks. The United States appealed the court's order on the ground that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection guarantee. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.
767 F.2d 1614, affirmed.
Citation: United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987)
Web Address: